You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Could Consciousness Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

We’re asking you to take a long hard look at yourself — and to think about what it means to be an "observer". Many problems in physics and cosmology implicitly or explicitly include this idea of an observer. But a tendency within physics to focus on objective phenomena and avoid subjectivity has led to a general avoidance of discussing exactly what an observer is. Not only has this habit avoided an intrinsically universal question, it has led to a situation in which many thinkers implicitly employ different meanings of "observer" in their work. They are then not able (or willing) to confront the impact of their definition on the questions they face.

In addition, the development of physics in the 20th century has led to a peculiar sort of polarization in thinking about the observer. Prior to the development of quantum mechanics, the observer was largely seen as irrelevant, as physics was about objective reality, by definition observer-independent. Quantum mechanics directly contradicted this view, requiring a much more nuanced understanding of the observation process and creating a lasting controversy between those embracing the observer’s role and those opposing its place.

As with previous FQXi programs on the Nature of Time, the Physics of Information, and the on-going Physics of What Happens, we believe that focusing the attention of the research community will start to bring us closer to “seeing” the solution to these problems.

Like our past programs, this one will feature support for foundational physics research, an international conference, essay and video contests, plus articles, blog posts, and the ever popular FQXi podcast. In addition, this program will for the first time also have a research component directly organized and coordinated by FQXi and its personnel.

First, let us announce the launch of our next Large Grant round. We will award a total of US$2.0M for projects examining Physics of the Observer. We welcome applications related to physics, cosmology, and closely related fields, such as neuroscience, philosophy, biophysics, complex systems, computer science, mathematics, and more.

Questions to think about include:

1. What does being an observer mean? The term 'observer' is used in contexts as varied as quantum foundations, biophysics, neuroscience and cognitive science, artificial intelligence, philosophy of consciousness, relativity, and cosmology. What are the properties or attributes that a system must have in order to constitute an ‘observer’ in these varying contexts?

2. What sort of physical systems have the requisite properties for those systems to construe various types of observers? In a spectrum from most simple to most complex physical structures, which systems constitute observers?

3. Are there interesting questions, to which the answers depend on how we think of observers?

Initial proposals are due on January 20, 2016. You can find full details about the RFP and more examples of questions on the website here. If you have any questions on this, please contact us at mail@fqxi.org.

The second major component of the Physics of the Observer program will foster a multidisciplinary network or researchers supported by centers in the Boston area and in the San Francisco Bay area. These two “B-Area” centers will be organized by FQXi Scientific Director Max Tegmark at MIT in Boston, and FQXi Associate Scientific Director Anthony Aguirre and Joshua Deutsch at the University of California - Santa Cruz. Supplementing previous experience in cosmology, gravity, quantum foundations, etc., Deutsch brings a powerful foundation in quantum mechanics, condensed matter, statistical mechanics, and biophysics to the team. Tegmark has been recently active in neuroscience research, and Aguirre & Tegmark have also been in deep-learning mode (get it?) regarding machine intelligence, in relation to work with the Future of Life Institute. With visitor programs and local meetings, the B-Area centers will attempt to generate somewhat coherent research programs in both areas, and personnel from the B-area centers will come together for two dedicated workshops.

Please stay tuned for future updates about FQXi contests, our 2016 conference, and all the other great content on the website. Here’s looking at you.

But a little suggestion if I can it could be well if FQXi improved the number of articles even short about many things.

Here is some ideas Astrobiology,Spaceship and engeniering architecture,dark matter and dark energy,Universal entropy principle and its steps of disponible énergies,gravitation and gravitons ,and his and that.

The new experiment uses one of three instruments invented to enable the speed of a probe to be measured from the local vacuum. They all depend on the magnetic effect of moving electric charge. The proposal aims to provide a new form of space exploration: measuring the velocity structure of the quantum vacuum throughout the solar system....

The new experiment uses one of three instruments invented to enable the speed of a probe to be measured from the local vacuum. They all depend on the magnetic effect of moving electric charge. The proposal aims to provide a new form of space exploration: measuring the velocity structure of the quantum vacuum throughout the solar system. Apparatus weighs less than a gram.

A 3893 word report can be made available for the next solution. It rectifies the false interpretation of data observed by astronomers

Dark energy and inflation mysteries have a simultaneous solution!

Ron Pearson B.Sc.(Eng.) formerly C.Eng.AMI.Mech.E. Applied Physicist and ex lecturer at the University of Bath, UK.

ABSTRACT

Dark energy is a speculation that attempts to explain why the expansion of the universe is speeding up by exerting anti-gravity force at long range. However, the big bang needs to limit the creation time of its energy to a split second. This is its ‘inflation’ phase. Unfortunately this creation cannot be switched off - leading to an error 10120 times too high!

This article shows how the two mysteries, inflation switch-off and the nature of dark energy, can be provided with a simultaneous solution. It is described without the maths.

Adding credibility are two peer-reviewed and published articles in 1997 and 1998. What they show is that creation from the void is only possible by introducing ‘opposed energy dynamics’. Opposite kinds of energy can either feed off each other or mutually annihilate. The combination provides the creation of dark energy from the void together with the energy switch-off lacking in inflation theory. A minute net creation remains controlled by the acceleration it produces: so demystifying both inflation and dark energy!

The latter provides the source from which the matter of our universe emerges, also showing why the quantum level is organised by wave-mechanics.

The theory provides new fields of opportunity for the chaos mathematician and super-computer specialist. It also suggests a new and most exciting new experiment in Earth orbit that could have paradigm-shifting implications for physics.

The final result of this research is that observer has origin in consciousness. Now 2 millions will be spend and at the end no significant result will be achieved. I’m sure no one will mention what I say at the beginning. HOW THAT? The same was with time, no result on time research was given. At the end of research Dr.Barbour publish a paper on arxiv on time which is nothing new. He tried not to use symbol t in his paper.....but this is not the point.....Why FQXI give money only researchers which are employed in established institutions? Do they think no independent researcher can give progress to physics? Dear Editors of FQXI, you are wrong…..at the moment physics progress is happening outside of established physics where still old paradigm is prevailing. Standard model has no power to explain mass, gravity and dark energy. Will establishment need 100 years more to get what we know for years already. This is really dark night of the physics. Wake up dear editors, wake up. Yours Amrit Sorli

In addressing the funding challenges facing unconventional research proposals at NSF-style, establishment agencies being specifically* addressed by the breathtakingly unconventional Physics of the Observer RFP, ] Mr. Sorli makes a very perceptive point: established...

In addressing the funding challenges facing unconventional research proposals at NSF-style, establishment agencies being specifically* addressed by the breathtakingly unconventional Physics of the Observer RFP, ] Mr. Sorli makes a very perceptive point: established physicists tend only to give money to other established physicists, just as sows suckle only their own piglets rather than any odd little barking purple-polka-dotted beast which wanders in homeless from out of the blue alpha-forest of mystery. This is how biological brains, families, boards, teams, grad schools, political parties and any self-perpetuating process must work to maintain cooperative coherence. Thus arises the exclusive club of intellectually in-bred, self-money-funneling mantra-machines to which the greats like Einstein and Galileo never belong in their seeing with new eyes, in finding a shell on the endless beach of wonder even more awe-enrapturing than the last...

Joining the club of conventionality requires drinking the so-called Kool-Aid of standard, by-the-trope-ropes, non-revolutionary thinking defined by the textbooks of the grad school mentors that by design turn out nothing but more copies of their currently fashionable thinkstyle: "if everyone else thinks the universe was created, like all observable life forms, planets, stars and galaxies are apparently created (whether by God's loaded biblical dice or quantum mechanics' fair ones), I d*mn well better think so too. If I can't live forever, then by big bang or big bible, I'm not about to let the Universe get away with it!"

The academic selection process by which one enters grad school filters out infidels from the start, actively selecting against the very novelty which advances science not in a smoothly arcing process of whittling incrementally toward ever more perfect theory, but rather in Kuhn's aching paradigm shifts more akin to earthquakes than erosion. Aspiring to see with new eyes necessarily involves blazing single-minded trails defined by the turned backs of unlocked but still solitary confinement: demand them.

Learn to like it rough, because once support of the leaders is won through earning their respect, likes, up-votes and money, the plunge into the pool of Kool-Aid has been made. Curl up then in mommy's arms and sink purring to the bottom. Swimming instead in a self-dug pond out behind the pool at the opulent hotel conference room cultivates what must be called rogue unconventionality beyond the fringe, for -- in an insane society spinning in circles -- the sane must by definition appear 'insane' and be left to their own devices: thank you sir, may I have another F?! another rejection letter?!

[ * "Unconventional: ... an otherwise scientifically rigorous proposal that is a good candidate for an FQXi grant will generally not be a good candidate for funding by the NSF, DOE, etc.—and vice versa." ]

I'm independent researcher doing research on time, gravity, cosmology, bijective epistemology for years with no financial support. But I have results. Sure money from FQXI would be well-come, but if you are not part of established institution you are "officially" not scientist. This is sad and we should left behind a stereotype that PhD means science. Not at all, see articles on arxive, most of them are just hypothetical "hocus-pocus".

We're in exactly the same position, doing same work. But watch out! I don't believe in photons or other point particles, wave-particle duality, singularities, big bangs, inflation, static black holes (but certainly gravitational collapse), wormholes, gravity waves, dark matter or energy (apart from electromagnetically describable but unobservable forms like radio waves' invisibility without receivers/observers), multiversal ekpyrosis, testable predictions from string theory (reducing it to Pauli's deplorable status as 'not even wrong'), cmb signal non-Gaussianity, the (mis)interpretation of redshift as due to expansion rather than to variations in intergalactic-medium spatial curvature generated by variations in both radiant and mass energy density (or equivalently gravitational potential) across the visible universe ... I do believe life in the Universe is infinite and eternal (just like Einstein's comment about human stupidity), and therefore life has arisen infinitely many times in infinite variety and technological ability to observe us unobservably... (I can hear the fqxi funding doors slamming now in the face of exactly what's been invited: the topical, foundational unconventionality explained below. But I ain't in the club!)

If this little riot against physics' members-only authority doesn't end our chat right here, let's note that it's in odd backwater corners like this where revolts against old ideas invasively breed and spread. Might be best for me to work my ideas into a science phriction novel (in the spirit not of fiction but friction against physics) instead of a proposal to fqxi as we both bite their ankles in chats like this? Don't know why I even bother to try and crowbar my way into the twisted game that all funding organizations -- as well as the scientist-impresarios granted funding -- are forced (by our collective advance through progress and destiny) to play in the bizarre professional frontal zone marrying mind to mystery, observer to obscurity, public to personal service.

There can be neither peace nor predictability in science's eruptive tectonic shifting toward theoretically wedding gravity and quanta, only the head-butting of victory against defeat in reputational warfare, with experiment's observer-eye as the disinterested umpire's whistle of falsifiability. A famously spiritual scientist said something like "as a reward for my contempt of authority, Destiny has turned me into another contemptible authority inspiring in others the very crucible of creativity called contempt for the authority I now have to bear, that lost contempt having once been the fuel powering my own theorizing!" Once proven infallible, authority ceases to question itself and the torch of ingenuity snuffs itself into the darkness of faith in a God deigning not to play dice. So, damned if contempt did, damned if it didn't conceive Riemann-enabled gravitation as rescue from the mercurial errors of Newton's rough draft. The stage-coddled fame of professorial authority seems to blind the vision of ex-contempt's new eyes astride the stability of tenure's training-wheeled stasis: perhaps unified field theorizing should best be left to hungry patent clerks pondering unicorn navels in public libraries where we the unfundable herd so unheard?

How have things changed from a hundred years ago with the development of the internet's connectivity and the ability of anyone breathing -- even drooling family pets -- to publish and push at strangers the entirety of their thoughts and lives online? (Just like me now...) We're drowning in data, ideas and stories, and just filtering through the explosively deepening maelstrom becomes the central challenge to the rise of new forms of thought, their rise choked further by the advertising that drove youtube's purchase by google (and skype by microsoft) in order to force-feed viewers the ad-spamming corporate blight of commercialism. The repulsed avoidance of such buy-buy cheerleading inspired both skype and youtube's chatroom-level birth in the first place, and then the sell-out transformed contempt for authority into the new authority.

The sale of this commercial-free video creativity to inheritance-gilded investment bankers encrusted in uncountably nested shells of corporate tax lawyers for a few billion amulets of fake wealth drives the cycle to repeat itself in endless over-complexification and limitless burning of resources. Time once again to start the starting over all over again as yahooglespam inspires the next revolt in some unknown garage like yours or mine... the spawning ground of alternative grassroots ideas. As I read yours in the attachment above, I shout "he's saying exactly what I am: that our brains' observations of ourselves and all matter thought to exist in isolation separated from light/gravitational energy ARE HALLUCINATIONS. Particles have no smoothly continuous spatio-temporal existence. Time and mass emerge from unobservable ether-energy just as music emerges from instrument-string vibrations. We and all matter are foaming lightbubble oscillations of non-point-particle atomized spacetime density. (More precise math below.)

Today's nameless app coders and patent clerks laboring in abject unfunded obscurity face the same challenge as have all the aspiring participants in science and art, challenges which all too often entail lethal consequences: prodigies such as math's Abel and Galois, music's Mozart and physics' Schwarzschild all died far too early and pointlessly due to a mix of the tragic tendencies of both individuals and societies (if not fate's dice alone) to make decisions not at all in their own best interests. At least we can hope these tendencies are lessening through time with the progress of contempt-for-royalty, transparency-favoring democracy's potential to respectfully follow science and open-eyed experience as preferable but certainly not perfect procedural examples of determining and making the wisest available choices: observe, question, predict, experiment, measure, compare, conclude, communicate. Repeat these scientific prayers until death=transformation do us part from endless pursuit of Truth's beauty...

Down here at our scavenged-bone-gnawing level, we can at least enjoy our peace and serenity free of the heckling contempt and back-biting carnivore politics characteristic of the front lines of professor-level grant wars to fund experimentation and publishing. We languish in exactly the sort of calm in which new ideas and perspectives germinate, where conversations flow like streams meandering in the weather's vagaries rather than like metronomic marches along publication conveyor belts in deadline-pressured journal-article citation factories. Cultivating the delicacy of these seedlings of thought -- newly exposed in the garden of trampling criticism-for-criticism's-sake of review panels and editorial boards -- into the light above the strangling vines of the forest canopy called competition for grants and departmental chairs and positions of privilege, seems to depend on the same typical blend of making wise life decisions (ideally leading not to romantic duelling and death by gunshot, warfare or disease) and patiently finding and connecting with those rare objective, open minds with time to ponder and tinker...

Clearly essential in the end remains the style of Dirac's reliance on mathematical elegance in making testable predictions regarding nature's dance that resolve present conflicts of theory both with experiment and (much worse) with itself: viz. the infinite charge densities in quantum particle theory, and the inconsistency of the big-bang universe imagined/conjured to have self-parthenogenesized from a teeny-tiny diameter while not ever having that damning edge that is so existentially essential to even DEFINING diameter. So theory ignores the self-contradictions and JUST BELIEVES, looking away... calling the Kool-Ade of anthropomorphism's latest creation myth sooo SWEET... because doing so pays off... until new ideas provide better theories agreeing v. conflicting with observable reality thought to be expanding under the influence of an infinitely tunable cosmological constant's whimsical accelerations and decelerations... and thus the present fqxi funding struggle unfolds... need to read more of your pubs' ideas, but what do they predict that might be measurable so as to be thus potentially falsifiable v. not even wrong? One paragraph limit:

My own ideas concern themes at the limits of both the infinitely large and small, and how to mathematically link them 4-dimensionally in what could be called a 'cmb-quarksoup equivalency'. The capacity of GR's tensorial methods to deal with highly-curved 3space without the 4d math blowing itself apart (as appears to happen in QM) suggests the reinterpretation of fundamental particles to be -- not 3d points moving smoothly about through our (macroscopic = superatomic) time and Hamiltonian momentum-space but instead -- noncorpuscular frictionless superfluid bubble-like oscillations in spacetime energy densities that can be modeled exactly like collapsing stars bouncing smoothly down and up, back and forth between states of matter and antimatter, i.e., positive and negative mass/energy density. Gravitational collapse would thus be conceivable as a collective collapse of oscillatingly structured, spectrally quantized particle-like entities which -- just as air bubbles afloat on water suddenly shift their trapped surface-tension energy into free surface waves -- transform their atomized mass-energy into free light energy in the spirit of E=mc(squared). Thus the genesis of radio-galaxy jets. Einstein-apostle Wheeler coined the term 'geons' for gravitating electromagnetic thingies/entities (or '-ons' as in protons) in his ceaselessly pondering "How come the quantum?" Spectral analysts of atoms, electron/muon/tau neutrinos and any other localized energy oscillation dance might reply in rhetorical questioning: "How come the quantized energy levels in Stradivarius strings vibrating at fingerfixed wavelengths? Because that's how trapped waves behave!" See Castillo's paper online: 'The hydrogen atom via four-dimensional spherical harmonics'. Such a view leads eventually to the prediction of cmb dynamism rather than face-of-God stasis in the so-called surface of last scattering posited by precision cosmology, with no quantum connection whatsoever to large-scale structure which can be equivalently understood as mere mirage in the spirit of the refractive properties of a waving sea surface that warp sunlight into the luminous inhomogeneities on the backs of whale sharks feeding in shallow water: artifactual v. actual structure! So with redshifts not accurately revealing distance, and intergalactic gravitational lensing not accurately revealing position, and cmb anisotropies not accurately revealing stasis, the big bang goes up in the same flames that burned at the telescopic stake Ptolemaic epicycles, Aristotlean musical spheres, and Grecian gods hurling lightning bolts above the clouds... As the big-bangers' patron Saint Lemaitre pleaded in primeval atomic prayer against mortality: If I can't live forever, I'll be damned in anthropocentrism's Hell before I let the Universe get away with it!

OK, a one LONG paragraph limit. Perhaps the biggest challenge to those of us contemptuous of authority and thus free to think independently is shutting up long enough to listen to anyone else's ideas... so let me try that now. Well, in just a second... The big banger's scientific creationism will implode with the bible bangers' version once the waving anisotropies in cmb energy are measured -- as calibration errors across mission from COBE to WMAP to PLANCK to WEBB... and beyond! -- to possess the same stochastic dynamics as the gentle-breeze-stirred sea surface, in a cadence consistent with computational models of galactic motions through 4d-relativistically v. Newtonianally calculated gravitational redshifting and lensing of the Universal ancient light generated not by one mythical big bang but by infinitely many, smoothly-IGM-dispersed -- and thus spectrally black-body -- tiny banglets of quantum-fluctuation-generated hydrogen atoms materializing not de novo but de vacuo viventium unobservio (mangling the Latin of 'from unobservably living nothingness') ...

I've read cosmologist Brian Greene's 'Fabric of the Cosmos': we appear to share an appreciation of the reciprocally cross-pollenating interplay between poesy in pedantry in popularizing science. Bearing gifts of ankle band-aids, perhaps I'll be tossed enough of a crumb by the fqxi grant proposal reviewers to work these ideas into greater conceptual and equational rigor? Or it's back to patiently awaiting the night sky itself to confirm the predictions of cmb-quarksoup equivalency toward at last driving measurement's light-saber stake through the heart of war-mongering creationism once and for all, and thus that of our species' ceaseless blitz-krieging savageries in nationalism's evil name thereupon fading finally into the global peace and trust so quintessential to life among the stars awaiting our earning it all by our confused selves. Of all the marvelous capacities of sentience to interpret the mysteries of the Universe it navigates, one of them alone yet reigns omnipotent: its capacity to MISinterpret mystery in pandering to its own fragility.

In the previous grant (Physics of Events) my proposal was to investigate the definition of event by explicitly taking into account the role of observer in Physics. I am happy to see that now the status of observer is the topic of the grant.

There are two very different observers of objects in the universe; an objective observer sees objects as they really are and a subjective observer feels an object’s relative phase coherence. As a result, an objective observer sees action as it really is and agrees with other observers about common properties. Even if an observer affects a measurement, as long as others agree to the observer effect, the observer remains objective.

A subjective observer’s relative feeling about an action phase coherence no other observer can measure or know. While an objective observer agrees with other observers about the objective properties of an object, including an observer effect, a subjective observer’s phase relative to an object depends on the unique lifetime of experience and development for that observer.

There are therefore two very different personalities for observers; objective Cartesian and subjective relational. A Cartesian observer views an object on a distinct path through Cartesian space and interacting little with other objects.

A relational observer views an object with purpose and interacting strongly with other objects and so the relations among other objects, especially their phases, determines the object’s future more than the object’s immediate trajectory.

The objective Cartesian observer tends to focus on the object properties and how the object moves and not so much why. A subjective relational observer tends to focus on the object relations with other objects, especially phase coherence, and why the object moves, not so much how.

And finally, there are two different kinds of observers for the two different forces; gravity and quantum. A gravity observer is purely objective and there is no role for a subjective phase in general relativity. When a gravity observer exchanges places with an object, gravity action is completely symmetric with respect to that exchange with the object being observed and so classical operators commute and there is no role for the phase of the gravity observer relative to an object.

A quantum observer, however, includes uncertainty and phase and so observer and object are not symmetric with respect to exchange and their operators do not commute since their phase coherence is not symmetric. A quantum observer’s relative phase coherence versus object phase coherence is therefore much more important for predicting action than objective properties alone.

As opposed to objective properties, phase coherence is subjective and only has meaning relative to the observer phase for the quantum bonds or scattering of a quantum collision between quantum observer and object. Clearly a quantum observer must discover the missing phase coherence of the gravity observer relative to the object for a quantum gravity.

All measurements are subjective, even when attempting to observe/measure some objective property, since there is always some instrumental effect; we merely measure how our instruments and/or senses respond/behave towards objective reality. We cannot observe or measure anything else.

Ahhh...is there nothing objective about reality that we can agree on? It is true that everything we observe is somewhat subjective, but we still agree with many other people about the objective properties of objects.

Usually people have more issues with subjectivity than with objectivity, but to say that there is no objective knowledge seems a little extreme.

The measurement problem, perturbation of the system under investigation is one issue. There is another you will see in the "spookiness" discussion. As Luca indicates -Velocity, position and spin are contingent relational attributes but mass and charge are non contingent properties, not affected by the temporal or spatial relations with the apparatus-protocol at measurement. Though we might note that their values reflect the human physics convention for assigning mass and charge not a human independent universe given value. So our human objective values of those properties could differ with Alien values of the same measurements due to different conventions.

May I see e.g. Fahrenheit temperature a contingent relational value but Kelvin temperature like mass, charge, and elapsed time having - according to the most reasonable convention - a natural point zero of reference?

Incidentally, I still doubt that Poincaré's two-way definition of velocity is a reasonable convention.

I realize what I wrote is ambiguous now. Yes I meant the units are given by convention so that has an effect on the values- but of course the amount of those units does depend upon the nature of the object itself. The amount of mass making the particle what it is; the amount of charge being the consequence of what the particle is, it seems to me. I don't know about 'total spin' as I think that is different from the contingent, relational, simple rotation I have been talking about and you may not even be referring to total angular momentum but the non classical (over my head) concept. If you would elaborate on the "extremely unconventional" nature of those 3 properties it would be interesting and helpful to me.

as you remind us from time to time, Farenheit is a scale of units that are a human convention, in that regard like the units of mass and units of charge. Kelvin rooted in absolute zero does seem more natural. The size of the unit being the same as for Celsius, there being 100 units between the freezing and boiling points of water. So units given by nature.

Yet still it is a choice to take that particular range and number of divisions as the units of the scale. Perhaps because water is so abundant and familiar. If we were hydro-thermal vent creatures in an environment rich in sulphur, perhaps we would base a scale on a certain number of units between the melting point and boiling of sulphur. Not necessarily 100, as being a different kind of creature we may have a preference for something other than base 10, perhaps something related to our number of tentacles.

I would say the number of units of temperature that will be measured is contingent relational as it depends what scale is chosen to produce the number of units. Though having selected a scale ( as for mass and charge) the temperature outcome is a non contingent attribute. Once measurement has occurred the (human produced scale) measurement value is attributed to the temperature property. We may say the temperature is 'such and such' but really that value is only attributed to the property of temperature allowing comparisons of other measurements using the same scale.

Here's a little factoid from the food industry; Farenheit also set zero at a natural freezing point, that of animal fats. That's why ice cream (frozen foods) freezers are calibrated to maintain -5 degrees F. If your home freezer isn't running cold enough its contents might be frozen stiff but after some time in storage the animal fat can become rancid.

This of course does not argue against the efficacy of standardization to metric increments based on 100, and the theoretical full stop of Kelvin's calculable absolute zero. But all of our units and maths, even '100', are derivived from earth based choice in human experience. We convene and choose what we want, and call the agreement 'conventions'. jrc

I feel mistaken. No matter whether Celsius or Fahrenheit, these values do in contrast to Kelvin refer to two arbitrarily chosen points. Mass, length, charge, elapsed time, and other primary quantities have independent of who does observe one natural point of reference: zero.

Interesting John. Quote (via Wikipedia) "There exist several accounts of how he[Daniel G. Farenheit] originally defined his scale. The lower defining point, 0 degrees, was established as the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt. Further limits were established as the melting point of water (32 degrees) and his best estimate of the average human body temperature (96 degrees, about 2-1/2 degrees less than modern measurements).":referenced- the Encyclopedia Britannica.

It seems a scale useful for everyday measurements especially when brine was commonly used in households for preserving food, and animal fats more widely used and important for baking. Certainly the freezing point of animal fat could have been a consideration in its development even if not now given as the defining limit.

It is a scale far less familiar to Europeans than Americans as it has become largely obsolete in Europe since the end of the 20th century. It seems to me there was an effort to teach my generation only using the metric systems but we were not immune because we were brought up in homes in which the older generation were familiar with Imperial measurements and the Farenheit scale. It annoys me when I find rulers that have the metric scale on each side and not both metric and Imperial on either side. I ask myself, why would you chose to produce an object that provides less information? Whereas a younger person would probably ask, why is it useful to have an obsolete scale, when it would be more useful to have the same scale each side so the ruler doesn't need to be turned one particular way for use?

Steve wrote: "we still agree with many other people about the objective properties of objects."

Agreement in our beliefs about objective facts, and objective facts per se, are not quite the same thing. For thousands of years, almost all people believed color was an objective property of the objects they observed. But we now know that all those billions of people were wrong.

1 °Ré = 1.25 °C = 2.25 °F, and there were scales with arbitrary lower and upper reference point too by Rankine, Roemer, Newton, and Delisle. The zero of Kelvin scale differs: It is the only natural lower point of reference.

Tom asked: "What is zero elapsed time?" It is simply the now, the actual border between past and future. It is also the zero of time to come, and it doesn't depend on an arbitrarily chosen reference like Christ's birth and midnight in Greenwich. Of course, the ordinary time scale has been reasonably based on the observed duration of one rotation of earth. Tacitly, we also assume linearity of the scale, i.e., superposition.

I agree with you about the natural zero of the Kelvin scale, which is the reason for its adoption. I also agree with you about Now though as I see it, it is important that that Now is the Now in foundational reality between former configuration of everything and future a yet to be actualized configuration. Not the subjective present, which is formed from sensory data of various temporal origins and different for each observer location. I like the phrase "the zero of time to come". Yes I agree with your last paragraph, paraphrasing ;human imposed scales of measurement are mere designations and not intrinsic and inherent to the subject measured. Though useful for the comparison of the magnitude of intrinsic properties.

While I cannot see in what I disagree with Georgina, I consider you completely wrong. Do you deny that one day plus another one equal to two days?

No just the very now evades measurement. The same is true for zero spatial distance, zero Kelvin temperature, zero mass etc. because in reality there are no negative distance, negative temperature, and negative mass.

In what way are days cumulative? If I say "see you next week, same time," I have to count the days that have passed, yet what has passed?

Is time somehow heavier for having accumulated {N} days? Is it somehow longer?

I can count days, though I cannot do so in a non arbitrary way. Only set-theoretic.

If I accept the truth of relativity, however, and do not differentiate past from future, I am aware of the nonlinear influences of countless variables that make a moment unique, with every point of spacetime equipped with its own clock.

The decision of the lengths of units of time that will be used for a particular consideration is a human decision. Divisions of any set length could be used but we have chosen certain conventions for our purposes. In for example setting the exposure of a camera a non standard duration might be chosen by turning of a dial,...

The decision of the lengths of units of time that will be used for a particular consideration is a human decision. Divisions of any set length could be used but we have chosen certain conventions for our purposes. In for example setting the exposure of a camera a non standard duration might be chosen by turning of a dial, selecting an icon or using a slider which only increases or decreases exposure but does not specify units of time.

Once a unit has been chosen then the number of such units can be totalled. Prior to selection of the standard unit that will be used, the units can not be totalled as you don't know what it is that is to be added together . We have learned of the various standard durations commonly used for that purpose and choose the most appropriate for the circumstance.

If the sequence of configurations of the Object universe is mentally divided up into days, ( To assist, imagine a block time like configuration that is representative of each day); only the youngest configuration of the Object universe substantially exists. So actually only the youngest, most recent part of the youngest 'configuration of the day'. Now two imagined configurations divided up from the sequence can be summed by arithmetic giving 2 days -rather than an unspecified, imagined duration of the sequence of configurations. But as only the most recent configurations is substantially real there is no addition of the mass of yesterday's configuration and the mass of today's configuration for example. Former configurations that are not part of the substantial youngest configuration are obsolete and do not exist. (Uni-temporal)Now is the youngest and only substantial configuration between the next configuration not yet actualised and the former configuration no longer substantially real.

That does not alter the phenomenon of non simultaneity of events for observers because potential sensory data, such as EM radiation and sound waves allow observer's to fabricate images of former configurations not still existing in external foundational reality.

Tom asked "In what way is time cumulative ?" That depends upon what you mean by time. If you are talking of the units just discussed then it is a mental fabrication that does not pertain to the substantial universe existing -Now. That does not contain that time.It is the same and only time everywhere, the only substantial configuration. You may be talking of time as in events that can be experienced, addressing that- there is accumulation of potential sensory data in the environment; not time itself, only the resources necessary to fabricate an output reality in which such events are represented. I.E.Potential sensory data accumulates not time.

Thanks, Georgina. It's an interesting position, although as you know I don't agree with the duality of your Object universe.

However, as to "Potential sensory data accumulates not time" I do agree ... because I consider time and information identical. If past information accumulates at the same rate as future information, in the same continuous and simply connected space, there is no boundary -- and Poincare recurrence applies at every scale.

I don't really understand what there is not to agree with. Even Richard Feynman considered it obvious that there are substantial objects ( such as the steak he mentioned ) underlying the light that we recieve and process allowing perception. Joking that "The philosophers that were unable to make that analysis and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger." We require substantial matter made of atoms, ions and electrons, with chemical structure, to nourish our bodies not just images constructed from received EM sensory data.

Thus we can postulate that there is the substantial matter not directly perceivable, as well as the output of sensory data processing that we do perceive and for the most part take as THE reality. Whereas there are significant differences between the foundational substantial configurations and the output of sensory data processing. The output being is a limited fixed state produced from the selection of data by that particular observer or detection or measuring apparatus; at that relative position, or in that particular relative motion, within the sequence of configurations of the Object universe. The substantial object itself is not so limited or fixed being the source for all possible measurements of it from all possible positions and relative motions, and thus allowing co-possibiliity of what would be counterfactual measurements, excluded from output/emergent reality

Einstein meant: Time is what a clock reads. Let's discuss three options:

- I consider an elapsed time something absolute from the perspective of any real process under consideration and of any real observer. Each past time is attributed to a particular event under consideration. It is cumulative, measurable with a clock and natural in the sense it doesn't need arbitrary synchronization with a conventional zero. Stop watches read accumulated elapsed times.

- If one speaks of a time that goes by then one refers to counting backwards from some arbitrarily chosen amount of duration. Decreasing future duration corresponds to decreasing distance in case of space. It is a non-negative quantity too. Ordinary clocks don't count down.

- Currently modern physics uses a universal scale of time with reference to an arbitrarily agreed event. In other words, it ignores the distinction between past and future. Only a synchronized ordinary clock can read this universal time. Natural processes cannot.

Sometimes, I agree a bit with Steve A: My trust in the conjecture of reality means denial of mysticism. I see being real and being subjective excluding each other. In this sense there is only a single reality.

You see how far two simple words can get you; objective and subjective.

Anyway, one thing that we can be sure to agree on is that people will never agree on what these words exactly mean. However, there do seem to be two different kinds of observers no matter what you might call them. And how we feel about things can be much different from how things really are and that goes for observers as well.

Clocks both tick and clocks have a way to count those ticks, up or down. In fact, we can tell time with all objects and it is just some objects with very periodic action that are what we call clocks.

My favorite clocks are millisecond pulsars because they both tick with a precise frequency that decays very precisely as well. Millisecond pulsars are the most objective observers that we have about our galaxy. In contrast, how an observer subjectively feels about time depends on their life experience and development and is unique to them.

Hi Eckard , you wrote "I see being real and being subjective excluding each other. In this sense there is only a single reality." The underlying source reality is not a singular subjective viewpoint or opinion, in that sense I agree with you. The difficulty as it see it with the statement you made, that the subjective is not real, is it is declaring all subjective experience, all relative perception, unreal. Yet it happens, the subjective experience and viewpoint are outcomes of real processes and within and a part of the greater reality in which it occurs. Quote "subjective -existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought" dictionary.com Also most people, I should think, regard their experience and viewpoints to be real. Which are good reasons for labeling output emergent experience as Image reality, suggesting a kind of reality but also denoting its qualitative difference from the independent underlying Object reality.

I did see an article some time ago in the new Scientist magazine I think. It was about an experiment in which the brain waves of participants in an experiment were recorded as they observed different words. Then subsequently they were shown the same words again and researchers were able to identify, just from the output brainwaves, which words were being observed. This is interesting as it gives independent objective evidence of subjective experience. How then can the subjective experience be declared not real, or not an aspect of reality.

When I clearly distinguish between past and future, this does not depend on perception, observation and the like. It is merely based on the so far trustworthy conjecture of causality combined with logical reasoning.

I agree on that the human-related use of notions with a final rather than causal perspective like future, observer, present time, and subjective often lacks the precision of the causality-related notion past. Given in a dream, I solved a problem and awoke immediately, then the dream was perhaps a real physiological phenomenon although the solution was possibly just wishful thinking and untenable. I nonetheless wonder if it often happens that someone dreams of a story that develops went backward in time.

Ordinary people still tend to have a good feeling on what is real. Immaterial influences, e.g. the experience of a subject can be real, too. Are pulsars objective observers? No, they are just pretty objective tools as were telescopes. However, they nonetheless don't see what I consider the objective reality but they just provide a perhaps best picture of a particular part of it.

Let's rather deal with a key question: How did Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein use the notion observer when they introduced it into physics.

The struggle here seems to be more about the nature of time and the semantics each employs to express their own conceptual idea of it. I find myself reading and thinking, "well, if I understand you correctly as to what you actually mean, then yes kind of, in this regard or that". But I can't shake the overall perception that in all arguments there is lacking a peculiar dynamic of time being proactive. Even relativistic thought seems to reduce to a static picture of time. Yet I also find it difficult to express in words an idea of connectivity, being continuously active rather than past and future being non-differentiable.

However mathematically complete, or precise an argument may be, does not necessarily mean it correctly identifies time. Both QM and SR simply ignore what has long seemed obvious to me, that there is such a thing as 'the speed of time'. Then SR and GR actually make sense if we look at the measurable universal absolute value of light velocity being the natural consequence of that natural limit being quite literally 'as fast as time allows'. It seems too seductive for mathematicians to reduce the equivalence principle to the axiom of 'time stops at light velocity' because that unphysical notion offers something of commonality with the unphysical invented universe of QM. Physics has been pushing on those reigns looking the gift horse in the mouth for ninety years, and still can't admit it has hitched the cart ahead of the horse. Time doesn't 'stop' at light velocity, light velocity is as fast as time can go. :-| jrc

Tom. I asked: "How did Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein use the notion observer when they introduced it into physics."

You replied: "As a facilitator of continuous exchange of information among free and bound variables, with no preferred observer reference frame, hence no preferred observer" which is hardly a definition of the notion observer as used by them.

In what do reference frames differ from the ordinary meaning of the notion observer?

Tom, "The special relativity usage differs significantly from the ordinary English meaning of "observer". According to the link I gave, an observer in SR is a frame of reference alias coordinate system. Should we equal it with the ordinary meaning of an observer or are we able to reveal the significant difference?

"The special relativity usage differs significantly from the ordinary English meaning of 'observer'. According to the link I gave, an observer in SR is a frame of reference alias coordinate system. Should we equal it with the ordinary meaning of an observer or are we able to reveal the significant difference?"

The difference is in what's being observed. If by ordinary meaning of 'observer' you mean the entire act of what it means to observe an event -- the event itself, the absorption of information, the processing into bits, the interpretation -- which event are you addressing? The external event, or the events that take place in the brain-mind?

In relativity, there is no interpretation of an event that depends on how the brain-mind processes it. This is perhaps where you get your erroneous metric + + + +. There must be reversibility -- change of direction, change of sign -- in order to perceive change.

There's a zen parable where three monks are watching a flag wave in the breeze. One says, "The flag is waving." Another says "The wind is waving." The third says, "The flag is not waving. The wind is not waving. Your mind is waving."

Relativity says, the flag is not waving, the wind is not waving, your mind is not waving -- the illusion that anything is waving is an effect of observer frame of reference. General covariance.

In proper terms in conventions of physics and math, is it correct to denote 'general covariance' to mean that if two or more parameters can change, a variation of one is in some way proportionally compensated by variation of another?'

This might translate in specific theoretics as: if the clock is slower at a distance from center than at a greater distance, there is a greater amount of time accommodated in that nearer region of space and hence the density of any probable events is also proportionately greater at that distance.

Experimental results e.g. by Shtyrkov give rise to question the constancy of the speed of light WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBSERVER. I also wonder how the two-way (ABA) definition can be reasonably justified.

A perhaps early use of the notion observer goes back to Lorentz who in his 1895 paper "Versuch ..."

He "showed that it was always possible to redefine the electromagnetic fields for moving bodies in such a way that all the electro-optical phenomena became just alike as for a body AT REST IN THE ETHER. However, in order to obtain this compensation of the effects of motion, one had also to make use in the moving body of a new time variable, which depended on the position. Time became a kind of “local time”, like the local time that was in use in the past for distant towns. In order to be more specific, let us consider the case of a body in uniform motion with velocity v with respect to the ether, in a direction defined by some axis x. According to Lorentz (1895), OBSERVERS BOUND TO THIS BODY should not make use of the true universal time t of Newton, but of a “local time” t0 which depends on the position through the formal relation: t0 = t − vx/c2 (where one implicitly assumes that true time and local time be equal at the origin x = 0)"

Meanwhile, I understand why an aether is undetectable and it was an unnecessary hypothesis. Read also Phipps concerning covariance.

So far, I have just a single question to you: What kind of observer did Lorentz refer to?

You are distinguishing between objective (a) and subjective (b) observer. The link I referred to meant: "The special relativity usage (c) differs significantly from the ordinary English meaning (d) of observer". So far, I cannot see any direct attribution to the use by Lorentz (e). Could you please so kind and simply tell us what you consider identical?

After you declared my first question answered without telling how, you ignored my second one. Instead you are asking me "what does 'no preferred observer' mean?

While I am not aware of having used this expression, I could imagine to specify that every real observer belongs to a particular point in space. Since there are no a priori preferred points in space, I may infer that there is no a priori preferred point of view either. However, if I am ready to leave the realm of reality and consider imaginable fictitious observers, then there might be an observer that rather than who fulfills the idea of covariance on the expense of a silly notion of time.

"In proper terms in conventions of physics and math, is it correct to denote 'general covariance' to mean that if two or more parameters can change, a variation of one is in some way proportionally compensated by variation of another?'

This might translate in specific theoretics as: if the clock is slower at a distance from center than at a greater distance, there is a greater amount of time accommodated in that nearer region of space and hence the density of any probable events is also proportionately greater at that distance."

Covariance applies to Euclidean geometry. The transformations are rigid.

"Does the general theory extend the principle of relativity to accelerated motion and is this extension captured by the general covariance of its laws?"

I think so, and the answer to your second question would seem to be 'yes.' A non-rigid transformation alters size, not shape. This is why I believe general relativity yields a topological theory, for which Joy Christian has supplied the measurement framework.

Thanks for the Norton link, it's on my reader cache and just a quick scan looks like it will be rewarding reading.

I shouldn't get ahead of myself before digesting it but would like to offer up a corollary to your statement: 'A non-rigid transform alters size not shape.' In all English translations that I have read on Einstein's relativity and the vast literature it spawned, the term 'dilation' is used in metaphysical discourse. How close the transliteration is to the vernacular dialect of the original, I can only assume to be 'close enough'. The point being that the correct definition of 'dilation' in English means simply 'enlargement', not lengthening either of distance or duration. And perhaps this offends the senses when one tries to conceive of how Lorentz Invariance (which is Euclidean and alters shape) can be incorporated into GR. The short answer being that LI is only applicable to 'elapsed time on a curve' and is conformational of the shape of the curve by coefficiency through a non-zero vector.

So it may seem contrary or meaningless to some that I would pose my question in the metaphysical parlance of " a greater amount of time accommodated in that nearer region of space ". That does imply a point in a Euclidean domain, but at which the value of time is not rigid.

In context to the Topic of this discussion, the GR 'observer' is not a participant and only views the assemblage of several kinds of maths that construct its own co-ordinate system with each application of observed parametric values. The choice exercised by the 'observer' is limited to which transform result one wants to extract for practical purposes, be it timewise or spacewise. :-) jrc

It is very interesting to observe such a diversity of feeling about the nature of the objective and subjective observer. Although we can all agree when we see an observer observing, my feelings about the nature of why that observer is observing depends on my lifetime experience and development as does everyone else's. We can all agree that we are all observers, right?

It is very interesting to observe such a diversity of feeling about the nature of the objective and subjective observer. Although we can all agree when we see an observer observing, my feelings about the nature of why that observer is observing depends on my lifetime experience and development as does everyone else's. We can all agree that we are all observers, right?

If an observer and object are completely symmetric upon switching between rest and moving frames, this is a classical and relativistic observer of a deterministic and objective object reality. Classical observer and object commute and the Hamilton-Jacobi wave equation describes action as a minimum energy with a determinate path. Quantum phase coherence plays no role and only the norms of quantum matter waves play roles in this classical reality and relativity is simply due to mass-energy equivalence.

If an observer and object are not symmetric upon switching between rest and moving frames, this is a quantum observer of a probabilistic and subjective reality. Quantum observer and object do not commute and the Schrödinger wave equation describes action as a series of discrete events with probabilistic minimum discrete energies and discrete time delays. Quantum phase coherence plays a major role and the phases of quantum matter waves for both object and observer decide a quantum reality that depends on the quantum phase of the observer as well as the object.

Both classical and quantum algebras are covariant and so that word must be used carefully since it does not differentiate between commuting and noncommuting associations and therefore classical and quantum algebras. It turns out that category theory composes reality into three algebraic classes: quantum, classical, and hyperbolic and all of these algebras show covariance among their objects. The hierarchy of these three algebras seems straightforward to me and represents a very nice way to unify quantum and classical action for both matter and antimatter.

As long as mass-energy equivalence holds for both observer and object, both classical and quantum algebras are consistent with relativity.

Tom seems to refuse answering my easily answerable question. You seem to agree with his distinction between objective and subjective observer. I would like to at least add the options (f) 'observer' as a convention and (g) 'inertial observer', (h) "spacetime observers". Again: What notion(s) was)were meant by Lorentz (e) in his "Versuch...", a, b, c, d, f, g, and/or h, or something else?

I would like to carefully investigate the case from the very beginning instead of jumping to GR. Incidentally, who was the first and introduced covariance to physics?

"That does imply a point in a Euclidean domain, but at which the value of time is not rigid. "

Right. That's why spacetime is mostly Euclidean. The non-Euclidean geometry is semi-Riemannian ("finite and unbounded"). That's why I think it does no violence to the equations of general relativity to change this from a model finite in time and unbounded in space -- to finite in space and unbounded in time.

"In context to the Topic of this discussion, the GR 'observer' is not a participant and only views the assemblage of several kinds of maths that construct its own co-ordinate system with each application of observed parametric values. The choice exercised by the 'observer' is limited to which transform result one wants to extract for practical purposes, be it timewise or space wise."

Now you're in line with Einstein's "free creations of the mind" and realize that the subjective-objective distinction is just bullshit.

++++ is not a metric of matrix algebra, it is a simplistic, and arbitrarily bounded symbolic statement of an additive linear progression. Taken literally, Eckard should have to limit any operations to only four progressions, or restate his linear symbolicism as +++...n. jrc

I'm going to move this post by Rob McEachern further up in the thread, because I think it reflects the truth of the matter, and underscores what John said previously:

"Agreement in our beliefs about objective facts, and objective facts per se, are not quite the same thing. For thousands of years, almost all people believed color was an objective property of the objects they observed. But we now know that all those billions of people were wrong.

John C, I didn’t write answered but answerable. I don’t consider “{do you walk to school or carry your lunch?}” an appropriate answer even if Tom liked it because he felt perhaps unable to deal with what Lorentz meant.

Incidentally, your comment on ++++ is off-topic. The signature of my posts may just remind of unusual questions: What justifies the exclusive application of FT and square rather triangular matrices and what the metric -+++?

Tom, you wrote: “the subjective-objective distinction is just bullshit.” Didn’t this contradict Steven A’s distinction between (a) and (b)?

If you accept the first postulate of Constant Speed of Light, but reject the second postulate of Physical Laws being Universal, how do you rationalize exempting Time from the second postulate? Why do you allow it to preferentially be universally metronomic? (tick, tick, tick...n) What a stubbornly persistent illusion! Only the psychologisms of an observer whom cannot remove themself from the equation can sustain the export of common human experience of time into the global marketplace of pre-owned ideas. What about Boutroux, or Calinon? There were as many purely mechanical reasons to question the ether as there were to accept it, but at the time of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein the ether was the sacred cow of physics and politically could not simply be shot dead and and left to bloat in the street.

Much of what is constantly brought up as being 'new thinking' in this forum, and in particular the role of observer and the cumulative time delays in calculating relative simultaneity had been cleanly dissected by the of time Michelson's first experiment. So you don't like the idea of time being malleable? Have another beer.

Steve A and Tom evaded my questions. You seem still to hope for being convincing. Let’s begin with a minor correction. Einstein’s first postulate was Relativity, i.e. covariance. Constant speed of light was the second one.

I agree with the second postulate if it refers to the definition of velocity I gave while I disagree with Einstein’s frame at rest as the basis for velocity and kinetic energy.

I also agree on that the laws of physics are universally valid for any chosen point of reference. However they aren’t necessarily equally valid for different points of reference at a time.

I too consider the idea of stationary ether disproved already by Michelson’s first experiment in 1881. While I don’t exactly understand what you meant with “bloat in the street” I guess it doesn’t tell us anything.

Indeed, I don’t like the ideas of time and/or space being malleable.

In physics, I prefer seeing an observer almost identical with a technically ideal sensor of measurable quantities, in no case it relates to human perception, subjectivity, judgment, consciousness and the like. The future and therefore also two-way (ABA) velocity cannot be observed/measured if B is located at the now.

That was a pretty clear statement, and I'll stand corrected as to which postulate is 1st. There are really only two items I am sure we disagree on.

Where you distinguish between universal validity of physical law for any given point, yet not necessarily so for different points at the same time; that is what I understand is the argument for relativity. Any measured difference...

That was a pretty clear statement, and I'll stand corrected as to which postulate is 1st. There are really only two items I am sure we disagree on.

Where you distinguish between universal validity of physical law for any given point, yet not necessarily so for different points at the same time; that is what I understand is the argument for relativity. Any measured difference between two identical points would be due to differing velocities or other inherent properties such as levels of charge or gravitational potential.

I don't know if we are in great disagreement as to Einstein's rest frame. Personally, I disagree with his assuming that motion can only be detected by any single body by reference to another. It has long seemed to me that anything that could be called a 'ponderable body' would be a closed inertial system of energy and its inertia would translate throughout the volume of that energy. So any two points within that closed system would be responsive to motion as relational to each other in the direction of motion. It would not necessarily influence some other body, so there still would be no preferred reference frame. Each is its own.

We do definitely disagree on the nature of time and space. Where I come from, 'have another beer' is a common phrase of social détente. Meaning, "nothing I say is going to talk you out of it" ... and I don't expect you'll be buying me one anyway. (saves a lot of bar fights - academia is for maybe a couple of kids every ten years that get a football scholarship. You don't have to tell me how sad that is)

Growing up in a small town newspaper family and gaining an early recognition of the peculiar hypocrisy of adult petty politics, I often read historical accounts with a jaundiced eye. The illuminaries of the relativistic revolution would have been constrained to phrase arguments in terms of the ether whether they held with the idea or not. Much like getting published these days means paying tribute to Quantum Mechanics. Eventually, the sacred ether cow wandered off and nobody really noticed. We have to acknowledge where a new understanding evolves from, while also recognizing that the imperfections of that origin do not invalidate the progress. jrc

Eckard, Steve and I aren't evading your questions. You're just not getting the answers you want.

It's a false dichotomy between the "merely personal" as Einstein described it, and the objective meaning that lies external to a brain-mind.

As Rob says, "Agreement in our beliefs about objective facts, and objective facts per se, are not quite the same thing."

That doesn't mean we can't ever agree on "objective facts per se", it means that we must be more clever with the mathematics that describe those facts -- where we can separate brain-mind events ("merely personal") from manifestly objective data.

Quantum theory has solved the problem by inventing a kludge called 'entanglement'. Some of us feel that replacing one illusion with another isn't the solution -- it's the problem.

"Personally, I disagree with his (Einstein) assuming that motion can only be detected by any single body by reference to another. It has long seemed to me that anything that could be called a 'ponderable body' would be a closed inertial system of energy and its inertia would translate throughout the volume of that energy. So any two points within that closed system would be responsive to motion as relational to each other in the direction of motion. It would not necessarily influence some other body, so there still would be no preferred reference frame. Each is its own."

The failure to identify a closed system by which Mach's Principle (the principle you describe) would work, led Einstein to abandon it eventually.

Nevertheless, general relativity is founded on Mach's Principle, and ends in singularity (black hole). Maybe black holes are the extreme boundaries of a closed universe, but this seems unlikely given Hawking radiation. Perhaps feedback between universes of a multiverse is responsible for perpetual motion -- Einstein was not opposed to adding dimensions to his theory "providing there are sound mathematical reasons for doing so," and from this we get modern extra-dimensional theories including supersymmetric string theory.

You put your finger precisely on it! "The problem of the origin of inertia is far from solved."

Allow me to digress a moment and correct myself on a post some days ago when I described the wine glass dance. I got it backwards (oops), focusing on the prose to evoke a fluid mental image of the dancer's motion, I had erred in where the 2pi and 4pi rotations occur. The 4pi rotation occurs on the rim of the glass as the arm joints progress through a 2pi rotation. Still the point being that it is there being connectivity that produces that physical result, and the attendant import to chirality and abstractions to spinors, etc.

Back to your observations, I quite understand and have mused quite a bit on it. The real physical response formalized by Lorentz can conceivably be applied as a covariant change of shape of a hypothetical closed system envisaged as a 'particle'. The problem being that an upper and lower bound of energy density has to be an ad hoc assignment because we lack a general definition of inertia. We have only an operational definition which says (sic) a mass in motion stays in motion and a mass at rest stays at rest. Theoretically, that leaves an open interval at both ends, and results in singularity. But here in seeking a hypothetical postulate to rationalize a general definition of "what is it about inertia that is identical to either mass", the value of a co-ordinate free measure space is apparent. To relate to any Lorentzian form of contraction in the direction of motion within a (given) closed system which is self-referential yet differentiable to direction of motion, co-ordinate points must build upon themselves rather than referring back to an external system.

So yeah, I'm on board with theory not observer determining what is observable, or (beg pardon) be-able. :-) jrc

Quite a thread you started. Let me add two bits that I hope will simplify things. Have a beer ready just in case.

What if the speed of light was both c with respect to all observers and also relative to all observers. I can hear someone from Brooklyn yelling "getoutahere". No, really take a look:

This unintuitive property of light (it diffracts when its source is accelerated) gives a physical basis to Lorentz’s insight that: “if it was assumed that moving bodies contracted very slightly in direction of their motion then the observed results of Michelson-Morley experiment could be accounted for”. The work done here indicates that the measurement of accelerating bodies with light will yield a measurement that indicates a contraction in the direction of motion.

the wavelength of the incoming wave is not changed. The sensory output of the observer encountering the wave is, due to how it is encountered. It differs from the input. What is experience is not a replica of what exists externally but a new 'reality' that is formed from both the nature of the stimulus and the measurement process-I.E.how it is encountered. The mistake is that thinking before and after measurement are the same phenomenon.

I translate your post as saying that the observer is a person X (or intelligence) that makes measurements (on inputs) by way of their senses.

I agree that this is the essence of the observer! And would add that the observed measurements can be indirect via instruments (which can be a chain of further people and instruments) the output of which ultimately provide inputs to person X's senses.

Did I understand you correctly?

And of course the people in the chain would be reliable people like those involved in FQXi.org :) And the instruments would all be traceable to Amazon :)

Yes it sounds to me that we are on the same wavelength- I agree about intermediate instruments. These can be reality interfaces altering the input received by them into a different kind of output prior to receipt by the "Primary Reality Interface" the human sensory system. Eg. The beep of a photo-multiplier, or the line on an oscilloscope. The case of information in books is interesting because one is not dealing merely with the formation of seen images but also with the meaning associated with those images necessary for reading and understanding, requiring prior learning.

All,

in the image Pentcho linked a person is shown. Though it could be any organism or AI with at least proto-vision via a photo-receptor. In the case of a person the light input chemically alters the pigment of the cone cells that are stimulated and that can cause an electrical impulse to be sent to the brain where further processing occurs leading to an experienced output.

As soon as interaction with the retina occurs the part of the light wave that was input ceases to be and new outputs are formed. To think the final observed output is still a light wave, because it is mentally associated with the light wave input is naive realism. The change from external reality to observed image reality begins with the processing of the input information by the reality interface, which for a human is its visual system.

The new theme of the FQXi program – the observer – can be seen as focusing many previous themes in a single point the other name of which is the measurement problem. The notion of observer, however, has so far played a folkloristic role in an intra-physical debate on the measurement problem at best, because ‘observing’ in physics has generally been taken to mean incontrovertible sensuous judgment of an observer-independent reality. A child, however, when shown around a nuclear power plant, cannot observe the nuclear power plant, but only walls, floors, pipes, flashing lights, and a water basin. Nor is it given to an ignorant spectator to make much sense of the game called cricket :) – observation is not merely Hume’s ‘looking at and rule finding’. Rather must the observer bring something to the (to be) observed that is of a categorically different nature than the (to be) observed itself in the sense of Einstein’s: only the theory decides what can be observed. Hence the new theme’s title Physics of the Observer cements precisely that perspective on the matter that has been in the way of making progress for almost a century, i.e. the banalisation of Heisenberg’s ‘cut’.

Good post H.H.J. An AI that has learned to identify objects and an organism that has learned brings that knowledge to extract 'meaning' from sensory (or data) input giving the potential for further understanding and or prediction. An inanimate measuring or detection object does not do that but only measures, or merely detects, and produces an output of which it has no awareness/can not identify. The 'reality' output depends in part on the processing conducted by the organism or AI. Inceptionism going deeper into neural networks

Einstein started out on his theory with a dream about different relative observations of cows jumping in response to a shock from an electric fence. It was a dream about human observers and what they see (relative perception). The theory has developed such that it is possible to theoretically calculate what will be seen in different co-ordinate frames and to switch between frames to calculate what other observers would see. Because of this objective ability to switch frames by calculation (objective calculation not subjectively generated ) it has been imagined that an actual object capable of 'seeing' can be substituted by any object such as a nail. However the nail is incapable of seeing and so the output of sensory data processing that would be obtained for that coordinate system does not exist for the nail in actual fact. Though the sensory data is encountered it is not converted into a space-time output. The role of the output reality fabricating observer, which could be an organism or AI or a simpler reality interface can not really be removed. Without reducing the theory to one that is purely theoretical and not representative of what actually happens. Un-received unprocessed EM radiation provides no information. What is observed is the (space-time)output, not what is existing externally un-received. All of the images seen or calculated to be seen, trains, clocks, galaxies etc. are output image realities not un-received sensory data and not substantial source objects made of atoms. Yes the calculations seem to work and they are objective but they are not modelling a reality interface, or organism or AI, independent process. (A reality interface, in this context, is a material or device or sensory system able to convert input from external reality into a different kind of output.)

it IS removed only as the output that would be observed, though objectively calculated, is only being imagined and isn't actually being observed at the time of calculation.

.. But it really is a calculation of what would be observed, if observed,or would be observable if observed, and so as I said a reality interface or organism or AI can't really be removed as what is calculated can not come into existence (in reality rather than just within the calculation) without it. (Talking about a physical process and not just maths.)

Now it seems to me, if you deny the reality of sensory perception that you are creating your own dichotomy of ubiquitous non reality co-existing within reality, rather than my own preferred differentiation of Image and Object reality. The output itself from the EM receipt and processing is a real fabrication that is produced by real chemical and /or electric processes from real EM input. What it portrays, like the story in a book, does not correspond to the external reality. Yet the story writing on the pages exists as a part of the underlying external reality, not as a part of the story tale.

Let me ask you this -- in testing helmets against crash impact, safety engineers say there are (at least) two collision events. One when the helmet impacts concrete, the second when the brain impacts the inside of one's skull.

Before we continue, which event do you think applies more universally? Why?

I suspect I don't understand the nuance of the question you intend asking. What do you intend by applies and what do you mean by universally?

Without knowing precisely what you mean I will say: both events involving substantial matter occur within the underlying Object reality. They are not synchronised within one singular sequence of iteration of the object universe but there...

I suspect I don't understand the nuance of the question you intend asking. What do you intend by applies and what do you mean by universally?

Without knowing precisely what you mean I will say: both events involving substantial matter occur within the underlying Object reality. They are not synchronised within one singular sequence of iteration of the object universe but there is probably overlap in the change. So the pattern of the Object universal configuration is altering first due to to the initial impact and change continues resulting from that including the pattern change that is the skull impact and after effects. So if one is regarding the pattern of those events they are not spatially or temporally clearly segregated into that distinct impact and that separate other distinct impact.

If one is talking about what is observed from the emission of EM sensory data from the substantial objects then only the surfaces are visible. So the impact with the wall event is visible to an outside observer but the consequent brain skull impact is not visible. As no EM sensory data travels from brain to outside observer. So now we have two distinct versions of events. One encompassing all substantial alteration to the configuration of the Object universe and one fabricated only from the EM sensory data received. An impoverished Image reality.

Now you might argue-" in physics, and in particular relativity, an event is a point in space-time (which for a given inertial frame of reference can be specified by position and time), and the physical situation or occurrence associated with it. For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time, in a given frame of reference" Wikipedia. The unique place and time calculated is from the observer's frame of reference, the output that would be obtained from receipt and processing of EM. But as no EM is received from the victim's brain, though the event could be put into calculations that is not the physics that would happen but just a mathematical calculation that does not pertain to an output Image reality -Unless I suppose the brain is being X-rayed at the time of the impact and that x ray information is detected along with the visible range EM. A bit of a stretch of the imagination.

Firstly you have not specified which mind is the observer. The victim will not see his own helmet strike the ground but will perhaps experience discomfort from that and pain from brain striking skull. I imagine most likely not experienced separately but as a singular uncomfortable event. Subjective experience, so it would be necessary to ask. The non victim observer will via EM receipt and processing be able to see helmet impact but not the brain impact event. Any observer in that observer reference frame would see the same and so it can be considered objective. Which is not the same as saying it can be seen without a reality interface(RI) and or RI-higher observer in actual physics rather than mathematics.

Mind independent is a bit specific. There can be an output reality from received EM data such as a camera images that do not require mind for their production. So lets instead consider reality interface with or without higher processing observer rather than "mind" I.E. RI/HO. If you are talking about relativity then the initial helmet event (that is observable by an observer other than the victim )is not RI/HO independent, as receipt of sensory data is necessary for the event to be observed. The brain impact event cannot in actual physics rather than the mathematics be observed by the non victim observer ( without the extraordinary scenario I mentioned). Both events are mind and RI/HO independent in the underlying substantial, rather than EM input mediated reality. If considering only non victim observers, there are thus two possible meanings of the initial helmet event, RI/HO independent and not independent, and one of the brain impact event RI/HO independent;In actual physics.

The theory itself has shortcomings in that it is incomplete as Einstein suspected. Your reply shows how impoverished. Mind is not essential for generating the space-time output reality but a reality interface is. A train that is seen 'in space-time'is a manifestation produced by either a reality interface such as a camera or an observer's sensory system and CNS. It is not the actual train substantial object made of atoms and not the potential sensory data in the environment pertaining to it not yet received. It is an output reality and thus can not exist if an ordinary object such as a nail is used as 'observer' because it is incapable of producing the space-time seen output. The space-time 'reality' is a product.

It is, despite your avoidance of the fact, a theory about what will be seen, not what exists without the necessary interaction of something capable of producing the output considered to be objective. Though as I have said elsewhere the output 'reality' from EM data receipt is a kind of chimera being the result of both independent input and the effect of the changes that occur as a result of that interaction. Seen events, seemingly occurring when the observer's present is fabricated from input sensory data, are not the be all and end all of the matter of what we can classify as an event. Events are (also)the unique interactions of substantial matter in space during a particular sequence of configurations of the Object universe. Occurring whether or not an observer is watching. Perhaps there should be clear differentiation of the two kinds of events. Such as into source events and event manifestations, Event(S) and Event(M).

I have been conducting useful differentiation and classification. That advances physics.

Tom and George go hunting. They trap two animals.

Tom says "we have two rodents, trapped in the same locality and with sufficient morphological similarity to identify them as the same kind of animal."

George says "I think there are sufficient morphological dissimilarities to differentiate them and classify them as different. So I'll call that one a squirrel and that other one a rat."

Tom says you are begging the question assuming there are dissimilarities between what are clearly both rodents, and so finding what you are looking for.

George clearly has found what he was looking for. Q1. Does that make the differentiation and corresponding classification incorrect? A1. No. As the differentiation is not incorrect does that make Tom's lower level of differentiation or accusation incorrect? A2. No

What I am talking about doesn't have to involve human perception. You know that surely. I have explained before and tried to remind you. The output from the information input could be from a photocell array, it could be from a film camera, because this is physics and not psychology that I am talking about.

"...space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see".Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.[ My Emphasis

I am taking "what we see" in the broad sense, to include detections by human made devices and not just directly via our senses, it is still talking about the output of EM information input as that is the only way we can see. . Differentiation of two kinds of objects and two kinds of events and 2 kinds of "reality" can be made. Into that existing independently of EM information receipt and that relying on EM information receipt and subsequent output for its existence. Space-time and all manifestations of observed objects and events are the latter kind.

Georgina, lest you think there is nothing on which we agree, I want to remind you of a post further up in the thread:

" ... as to "Potential sensory data accumulates not time" I do agree ... because I consider time and information identical. If past information accumulates at the same rate as future information, in the same continuous and simply connected space, there is no boundary -- and Poincare recurrence applies at every scale."

Quantum mechanics applies to information theory, and in that the conventional notion of observer may play a role. We are what Murray Gell-Mann called information gathering and utilizing systems (IGUS).

Tom wrote :Nevertheless, Georgina, you beg the question of duality in the same way that conventional quantum mechanics does -- an observer 'entangled' with instruments of detection.

It seems that the SR inertial reference frame has evolved from an imagined field of clocks. Yet clocks that would be seen by the observer. So the means of calculation is already anticipating observer...

Tom wrote :Nevertheless, Georgina, you beg the question of duality in the same way that conventional quantum mechanics does -- an observer 'entangled' with instruments of detection.

It seems that the SR inertial reference frame has evolved from an imagined field of clocks. Yet clocks that would be seen by the observer. So the means of calculation is already anticipating observer fabricated output of the EM sensory input.

Tom wrote:"My point is, until one allows theory alone to determine measurement outcome -- mathematical theory independent of sensual input and interpretation -- one is chasing one's own tail." The measurement outcome is set up to be the output from EM data receipt. So it can not, in the physics of the actual universe rather than mathematics alone, be sensor independent; though it can be independent of human sense of sight. The outcome isn't the independently existing external reality but product.

Tom wrote "You cannot avoid the issue of psychology, or the 'merely personal', as long as you reference the senses." I can break down my arguments into those parts to which the senses and other parts to which psychology specifically apply, and importantly those parts to which they do not necessarily apply as the role of the sense of sight can substituted by an inorganic device."

I thank you for pointing out one sentence of agreement. However your subsequent reasoning makes me question that agreement. You wrote "If past information accumulates at the same rate as future information, in the same continuous and simply connected space, there is no boundary". There being no boundary between past and future when talking of the information alone does make sense, As its classification is relational and would depend upon relative to which observer it is considered.I don't know why you would then separately specify accumulation of past and of future information. If you mean somehow observer independent past and future accumulation of information, that doesn't make sense to me as I don't see how something not yet in existence can accumulate. Your words are ambiguous to me.

If someone argues that there is only one kind of observer and one kind of reality, that would mean their opinion and feelings are facts and facts are their opinion and feelings. In this case, there would not be any difference between objective and subjective reality.

Since my experience has been that there are great differences of opinion and feeling among people about the nature of a tree, but all agree that there is a tree. Denying that does not make any sense.

It therefore does not make any sense to redefine the objective color red by mixing that objective notion up with the subjective feeling about a red object. I can look at a beautiful red tree in the Fall and am confident that nearly everyone who sees that tree will also call it red.

However, my feeling about the beauty of such a red tree in the Fall is mine alone. To argue otherwise does not make sense.

And nearly everyone that pricks their finger on the thorn of a red rose will feel pain. But neither the color red nor the pain are an objective property of the rose bush - they are both just your nervous system's generated response (a virtual reality of sorts) to your encounter with the rose. Neither the color nor the pain flowed into your body, from the rose, they were both entirely generated internally, in response to encountering something from the rose, that was neither colorful nor painful.

This seems so much more difficult that it should be. Many objects cause pain and many of those objects we can agree on. Many objects are red and many of those objects we can agree on. This is objective knowledge.

My feeling pain is different from others feeling pain and my feeling of a red color is different from anybody elses. This is subjective.

Each nervous system works in similar ways that are objective knowledge. Each nervous system produces feelings that are unique to each person and that is subjective knowledge.

The color of a rose is a large number of photons that connect the rose to the pigments of your retina and so you are connected to the rose with electromagnetic waves. You are also shining onto the rose with your radiation. That exchange of matter is a very weak bond that makes you are part of the rose and it of you.

The thorn of the rose literally contacts your tissues and includes a neural pain sensation. Obviously the thorn bonds with you and you bond with the thorn and your pain is simply a product of that measurable bond. The bond of the thorn with your tissue is objective and completely measurable. The pain is yours and yours alone, but many agree that thorns are painful and so this is objective knowledge.

This seems so obvious that it is hard for me to reply to things that do not make sense.

with respect, I think your rose -pain sensation description could do with an infusion of biology. This may be helpful Nociceptor, Wikipedia Also there are some gross and subtle variations of human vision. Making colour dicrimination less than completely objective. Types of colour blindness and a few tetrachromats who have extra colour discrimination.Online colour test challenge Individual neural development varies, as development is related to the environmental stimuli encountered during life and resulting stored memories, the synaptic connections of neurons. The neural pathways activated when a stimulus such as a rose thorn prick happens are learned associations.What exactly is output will depend upon what prior rose thorn associations have been made. Eg. One person might liken it to a previous wasp sting that was felt, another recall seeing the thorns on a homemade ruby anniversary bouquet.

"The color of a rose is a large number of photons..." No. Think about it. Those same photons, received in smaller numbers (night vision based on rod-cells rather than cone-cells) produces no red color in your visual system.

"The thorn of the rose literally contacts your tissues and includes a neural pain sensation." No. Some people have a genetic defect that causes them to never feel pain, in spite of the contact.

The mere contact with photons and thorns is not sufficient to enable or predict the resulting responses.

"Consider an experience I had recently. A book with a red cover had been left on top of the dashboard of my car in such a way that I could see a red reflection of the book as I looked through the windshield. I was surprised to find that distant objects retained their normal colors as they were viewed through the red reflection. Even green objects seen through the red reflection looked green. This interested me because I of course knew that when red and green light are mixed in isolation, they form yellow. Then when I held up my hand to block the rest of the scene and viewed just the patch of the red and green through a small opening between my fingers, I did see yellow."

from Alan L. Gilchrist, "The Perception of Surface Blacks and Whites", Scientific American, March 1979.

Obviously, there is more to color perception, than just receiving a large number of photons.

Robert that was an interesting personal experience. Demonstrating that experience of colour is an output product and not the input or reliant only upon input. I suspect that knowing the red was a reflection your brain was able to compensate for it when provided with the background information; but produced an output of the mix of photon frequencies alone when the background was excluded. The colour an object is seen to be depends upon the surrounding objects too. illusion and colour perception. Colours can also be artifacts of the visual system. Here is a demonstration optical illusion- Adaption and visual encoding

The pain sensation too is output product from processing of the stimulus and thus varies between individuals. Robert gave an extreme example. The following article gives a lot of interesting background information on pain , including reasons for variation of sensitivity between individuals. It includes: anatomy of pain , neurochemistry of pain, genetics of pain, and more.Pain :Hope through research

Objective knowledge does not in any way mean that everyone agrees, just that most people agree. There are lots of particular exceptions for any number of particular reasons. That's life but it does not negate the premise that there is object knowledge thank goodness. We could not even be having this discussion without a large body of objective knowledge about which we all agree.

Besides, observers must be able to tell time but there are two different ways to tell time; atomic time and decoherence time. How an observer tells time will affect the observation as long as these two methods tell different times. Telling atomic time involves pulses of light from atom transitions that tick very fast, up to billions and even trillions of times per second. Atomic time is objective and other people can measure and agree to the same atomic time...except maybe the few people that people keep bringing up as exceptions.

Telling decoherence time involves the changes in the phases of atomic time pulses instead of counting pulses. Decoherence is a much more subjective way of telling time since decoherence tells time in a way that depends on the clock’s unique composition and history.

A decoherence observer tells time with the very slow decay of a clock tick phase coherence, which shows up as a progressive phase shift of a photon tick rate. In a sense, decoherence tells time from how a clock runs down as opposed to telling time by counting the ticks of an atomic clock.

Rotating neutron stars called millisecond pulsars tick hundreds of times per second and those tick rates also display a very slow average decoherence rate of 0.26 ppb/yr. The tick rate of atomic clocks also undergoes a slow coherence decay of the tick rate as shown by the Allen deviation (or square root of variance), and this decoherence rate is on this same order as the decay rate of the millisecond pulsars.

Color perception is both more complicated and more interesting than you suppose.

In the example I gave, the brain came to the conclusion that there were two objects, occupying the same place within the scene, so it "false-colored" both objects. When the two objects could no longer be seen, a different "false-color" was assigned to the same spot within the scene. All colors are false colors; color is not a property of the object being observed.

Even more interesting, in the neurological disorder known as Synesthesia, the "false-coloring" system can be mis-wired, so that it responds to non-visual inputs; People might see a particular color, when hearing a particular sound, for example. In other words, the perception of color is being triggered by one of the other senses, not the visual sense.

Color is not a visual property. It is merely a response that the brain, USUALLY associates with visual inputs, but can associate with entirely non-visual inputs.

I was using imprecise shorthand when I said the brain assumes the red...etc, for the detected EM frequencies from the red end of the spectrum ....Yes synesthesia is interesting. Phosphenes too are interesting

...and so this discussion illustrates my point. There is an objective red color that we can all agree to and then there is the subjective feeling that we have about that red color that is ours alone. The objective red is the one on Wicki and in dictionaries and at the paint store and so there is a lot of objective agreement about red. The subjective feeling of red can be fooled and there are any number of sensory issues with color perception, all subjective.

Likewise, a thorn bonds to skin in an objective manner that we can all agree about. Just look it up. How we feel about that thorn is subjective including the pain that we might feel. Pain is after all just another sensation like seeing or touching. Once again, any of our senses can be fooled and there are any number of subjective sensory issues with pain perception just like with color and touch.

What is observed? Answer: The universe/reality from a particular point of view. There are no abstractly-existing “frames of reference”, there are only the frames of reference/points of view of real things: particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi-cell living things.

What is observation? Answer: Observation is just the apprehension of various categories of...

What is observed? Answer: The universe/reality from a particular point of view. There are no abstractly-existing “frames of reference”, there are only the frames of reference/points of view of real things: particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi-cell living things.

What is observation? Answer: Observation is just the apprehension of various categories of information and their information interrelationships, by real things. Observation is the same as subjective experience/”consciousness”. This subjective information does not exist abstractly: physical reality IS subjective information, and conversely, information is physical.

How does observation occur? Answer: Fundamental particle-level law-of-nature-interrelationship information and interaction-event information are the source of all “higher level” information/observation. There are clearly 5 possible levels of information: particle, atom, molecule, single-cell living thing, and multi-cell living thing. Clearly, living things consciously observe/experience none of the fundamental-level information: they only observe/experience very variable, what might be called “executive-level” information.

What do physics and other sciences “observe”? Answer: Science represents information about reality symbolically i.e. in words, in different languages, and via symbols and diagrams. Science builds up a provisional overall/“objective” view of the universe or of parts of the universe. There is no real thing that actually observes/experiences all this platonic-type overview information. Only parts of these “objective” scientific views are ever experienced/known, and they are only experienced/known subjectively, and only by particular human beings.

All of reality observes i.e. subjectively apprehends/experiences information about self and the rest of reality. “Consciousness”/subjective experience of information is NOT something new, unique and special that only occurs in higher-level living things. It is only human self-centredness and hubris that has blinded us to the nature of reality. (Note that the highest level information available within a robot is molecular-level information: the molecules are not “talking to each other”, producing higher-level information.)

an interesting post. For me demonstrating clearly why it is important for physics to decide definitively what does and does not constitute an observer. Or to have an accepted differentiation of the term observer such as with alphabetic attachment There are significant differences between most basic response to an input of a simple element of reality -compared to a reality interface, that outputs a different kind of information to the input, -compared to higher level analysis and attachment of associations, such as name and other information that requires prior learning of AI , neural network, or brain. There is also significant difference of all of those kinds of (maybe) observers with a theoretical observer that amounts to nothing more than carrying out a quantum calculation as if observation has occurred, or imposing an observer reference frame in order to conduct a relativity calculation.

Re.your comment:Quote: "All of reality observes i.e. subjectively apprehends/experiences information about self and the rest of reality. “Consciousness”/subjective experience of information is NOT something new, unique and special that only occurs in higher-level living things." If by apprehend you mean to understand or perceive, which is a standard meaning, then I don't agree. I think consciousness requires a certain level of complexity in order to have awareness and understanding rather than just unaware response. Though consciousness too is a word with different connotations for different people. Also in need of standardization or formal differentiation within science, especially with ongoing research into the perception of neural networks and AI development.

Am I being asked whether the (James F.) Woodward hypothesis might involve the local accelerated frame as observer of the large scale distribution of matter? Yes it seems to me from what I have just read that maybe that is what the hypothesis entails.

There is a Wikipedia article, "Observer(special relativity)" that explains the mathematical observer reference frame used in SR and its historical development.

Identical sentences in at least two articles are telling rather than explaining us something confusing: "it does not make sense to speak of an observer (in the special relativistic sense) having a location. Also, an inertial observer cannot accelerate at a later time, nor can an accelerating observer stop accelerating."

I also looked for the history of Maxwell's equation. I was in particular interested in the contributions by Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz but I didn't find anything. Tom and Steve A refused to comment on how Lorentz understood the notion observer. Maybe, I am just too stupid?

if the observer is in an inertial frame of reference it is the frame of an observer moving at a steady velocity, not accelerating. What will be seen if the position of the observer person or device is changing and affecting the output that will be observed. Re quote "an inertial observer cannot accelerate at a later time, nor can an accelerating observer stop accelerating" Taking a guess I think that means that in order to be an inertial observer it can not be accelerating and to be an accelerating observer the observer must be accelerating. If either changed their behaviour they would not meet the requirements of their classification.

It seems to me that Lorentz considered observers in different inertial reference frames (Ie moving observers in motion relative to each other) that were not within space time but time and space as his work on transformations preceded special relativity but was later adapted by Einstein. Though the transformations are objective and can be applied as linear matrices they are in real world physics, rather than mathematics alone, in no way independent of the observer device or organism as the thing being calculated is what the observer's would see. IMHO In the real universe, rather than the mathematics alone, without having an device or organism capable of converting EM input into output there is no seen. That rings alarm bells for me when I read about transformations of appearance when the relative motions are of inanimate matter alone.

Sometimes the ends of conversations get 'lost' due to the way the site works and sometimes questions are not easy, or are time consuming, to answer. Those are more likely explanations for the lack of replies I should think.

"Though the transformations are objective and can be applied as linear matrices they are in real world physics, rather than mathematics alone, in no way independent of the observer device or organism as the thing being calculated is what the observer's would see. "

That isn't true. The Lorentz Transformation is mathematics alone, and completely independent of "observer, device or organism". That the calculational result coincides with the observer's choice of initial condition is a mathematical convention.

it can not be (philosophically) without an observer because it is about what will be seen. You can not have a what will be seen if there is nothing that will be seeing. Yes I accept the point that what will be seen depends upon the when/where start of the inertial motion of the observation, the initial conditions, and not an observer in particular. That's not what I'm getting at. I think my use of the word 'independent' was unhelpful. It would have been better to say 'in no way without observer device or organism...'I was also trying to cast my description into the existing world where things happen, by saying "in real world physics, rather than mathematics alone", which perhaps was not adequately expressed.

Let me try an analogy. A cook describes in his recipe book the taste of the product made from one of his recipes that a reader can subsequently read. Is the description that is read without an implied observer? No because to have a taste there must be a taster.

Does a frame of reference alias coordinate system in SR significantly differ from the physical body to which we ascribe it? I think so.

First of all it is imagined to be rigid while no actual "solid" body is absolutely rigid. Otherwise, one could use a sufficiently long bar and sufficient force as to transmit signals with a speed in excess of c. Einstein 1905 called bodies as rigid as his coordinates.

Secondly, Georgina clarified that in SR a change from inertial to accelerated or vice versa is impossible because it would not meet the requirements of their classification. Being an engineer, I imagine two coordinate systems on a line belonging to each a point of reference the distance of which may or may not change steadily or accelerated regardless of that classification. I suspect that the use of coordinate systems in SR is unnatural.

I am not sure how the sentence "it does not make sense to speak of an observer (in the special relativistic sense) having a location" is meant. In real life, it matters where an observer's point of view is located relative to the object under observation. A coordinate system without its point zero of reference doesn't make sense to me.

To me, a frame sets by definition boundaries e.g. to a picture. In other words, in physics it implies a point zero. Wasn't the German original "Bezugssystem"? A line without reference point was to me not qualified as a Bezugssystem.

Lorentz still understood not just the notion observer in its original meaning.

What about missing comments, I wonder why nobody explained to me what was wrong with my suggestion concerning Pentcho Valev's last post.

my understanding may be naive. I just thought that since the reference frame was of something with inertial motion the somethings location would be changing and so not identified as a location. The frame of reference can be thought of as the "field of clocks" that are associated with the observer, becoming in a way inseparable from it -And following that path of logic, the reference frame itself becomes part of the observer subsuming it, in a philosophical rather than material sense.

Suppose we create an app that is able to transform what a trichromat human sees to what a dichromat dog would see. This usefully allows any picture to be input and converted to dog vision. There is no actual dog observer in the app, yet the output can not be denied its identity as what a dog (observer ) would see, which is what it was created to represent; -output of observation by a dog observer.Take away the dog observer there is no meaning or raison d'etre to the output, it is just a meaningless transformation (ignoring that there are other dichromat observer's vision it could represent instead) Without association of an observer of any kind what does the colour transformation mean in the real world, outside of the process itself? Seems to me its meaning has been removed and it is just a meaningless objective process.It isn't helpful to say this is completely objective and there is no dog observer. The dog observer is 'built in' so to speak.

If you are trying to argue that there is no such thing as a mind-independent reality, then you must describe the conditions that make it impossible. Instead you are inserting irrelevant information from biology that merely power an illusion.

Why are you willing to adapt Einstein's naivety? Any body and any frame have each a point of reference that may move relative to each other. In so far one can of course not attribute to them just one location that is always valid for every moment. However, Einstein misused his denial of the relative locations as to reach formal agreement with Lorentz who had fabricated local time...

Why are you willing to adapt Einstein's naivety? Any body and any frame have each a point of reference that may move relative to each other. In so far one can of course not attribute to them just one location that is always valid for every moment. However, Einstein misused his denial of the relative locations as to reach formal agreement with Lorentz who had fabricated local time in order to defend the ether. In reality, the steady change of distance between observer and its object of observation can either increase forever since the first moment of consideration or it does first decrease for a while and then it increases forever.

I prefer restricting my consideration to linear relative motion in merely one dimension x. Then there was or will be a common point where the position of object under consideration coincides with that of the observer and they may synchronize their clocks. Where is the problem? I suspect it lies in the propaganda mentioned by David Kaiser and in people like you who seem to be willing to believe and defend anything.

In Germany, the former chancellor Helmut Schmidt has died. His legacy with respect to Europe was what I consider the opposite from Merkel's politics of dictating empathy to Europe. Don't we need self-critical thinking in order to keep e.g. Britain in our boat of peace and prosperity?

Roughly speaking, the population in rich regions like Northern America, Europe, China, and Japan does not double in each generation. While I feel, sympathetic with everyone who lives in a region with on average 4.3 children per women and desires to escape from lacking perspective, unemployment and even notorious war between rival religions and super powers, I see Europe's peace at risk due to blind empathy in combination with a widespread among Germans somewhat illusory idea that poor immigrants will ensure them their pensions.

Likewise, I criticize Merkel's ignorance toward questioning of SR by E. Friebe. Maybe I just don't understand the logics of SR as correct? Who can help me out?

Lorentz extrapolated Fitzgerald's Contraction into a set of transforms which produce results depending on which parameter you want to extract, and all that based on the generally accepted convention at the time that for light to be a transverse wave moving at a measurable constant velocity there would have to be an ether media that the wave would progress through. But the upshot turned out to be that there was NOT an ether, yet the Lorentz transforms still hold true in consistent measurements predicated on SR.

Instead of saying, "Gee! what clue does that give us as to what the physical form of light might really be?" there is this perennial dengeneration towards Newtonian Only Mechanics with its battle cry of "There is no ether! Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater!"

Tom wrote "If you are trying to argue that there is no such thing as a mind-independent reality, then you must describe the conditions that make it impossible. Instead you are inserting irrelevant information from biology that merely power an illusion."

No I am not arguing there is no such thing as mind independent reality. The information from biology was building an analogy in which the observer output reality (not external world information receipt independent reality) is built into the calculation. An analogy for SR mathematics.

an imagined observer organism, that incidentally in real life happens to have a mind, could be substituted with an inorganic, mindless, camera ( a type of reality interface).The mathematics is mind independent. Though the output from the mathematics alone does not involve mind, it has to involve a reality interface. As the mathematics models the output of a reality interface (that may or may not be part of a higher organism.)

I am taken aback by your "Where is the problem? I suspect it lies in the propaganda mentioned by David Kaiser and in people like you who seem to be willing to believe and defend anything."

I think perhaps you mistook my answering your recent specific questions about physics, just trying to be helpful, as being unquestioning acceptance and/or defense of those things mentioned. It was not.

I am following the sage advice "Choose your battles wisely." I am a biology graduate and former science teacher not a physics professor. I have tried over many years to use philosophical arguments to examine current physics and try to find out the answers to numerous problems. I think I have provided a number of helpful suggestions over the years.

The older and understandable by everyone notion of observer and time... was indeed employed by Lorentz. And that notion of time is very simple to understand. If I am here right now, there is also the same 'right now' everywhere in the universe. But that is precisely why SR is not about relative motion, its about relative simultaneity given the time it takes (as metered everywhere as...

The older and understandable by everyone notion of observer and time... was indeed employed by Lorentz. And that notion of time is very simple to understand. If I am here right now, there is also the same 'right now' everywhere in the universe. But that is precisely why SR is not about relative motion, its about relative simultaneity given the time it takes (as metered everywhere as it is here right now) for a measurement to be extended across space at (and only at) the measured in the here right now value of light velocity. For simultaneity to be calculable, and the distances and elapsed times of those measures between objects moving at different finite uniform velocities to remain mathematically commutable (literally, like a commuter driving to work AND then back home) the value of a span of length in space and/or the value of a span of duration of time must be allowed to be variable. And that variation mathematically is consistent with Fitzgeralds Contraction of a span of length in space in the uniform value of a here right now span of duration in time.

Something has to give if there is a physically real simultaneity as we imagine it to be. In QM to maintain here right now + everywhere uniformity, AND simultaneity, spookiness and instantaneous action across any distance is deemed acceptable in polite company. Others in Classicism accept some variation or another of a physical non-uniform velocity of light, but that encounters the light velocity proportional difference of intensity of an electric and magnetic field of any point charge. If light velocity is allowed to vary for a signal encountering a detection system that operates on the here right now value of light velocity, how could that system respond in a predictable manner?

So given our here right now assignment of value of time in the 'one Mississippi' second cadence, if we take that as the speed of time everywhere, wouldn't the density of energy be constant everywhere also? If on the otherhand, the implication of SR being that physically the speed of time is not universally uniform, then can we not hypothesize that where the speed of time IS uniform within an inertial volume of coherent energy, then that inherent yet finite region would exist at a constant density? Exterior of that region if the speed of time continuously increases to a limit equivalent to light velocity, then the energy density would continuously reduce to a fundamental lowest density bound. And any velocity in motion of the volume would effectively reduce its energy's density within the limit of the lowest bound. That's my painting of a particle of matter.

I keep reminding myself that people have been arguing over all this for 110 years, and will probably continue for an even longer time whatever its speed might be. :-) jrc

you wrote "Something has to give if there is a physically real simultaneity as we imagine it to be."

Simply, that something is the suborn belief that what is seen is what is in actual fact happening Now, rather than the product, something new generated from received EM sensory data. Product =/= Source of information.

That gives two simultaneous processes occurring that are not equivalent:1. What is in actual fact happening unobserved, foundational"Object" reality AND 2. what is seen to be happening; due to the non infinite speed of light, information receipt and conversion to output product. An 'Image reality' Arising as a natural AND logical consequence of the physical process. Pre-empting a Tom like response- The above is about physics not mind/psychology /biology, the recipient can be an inorganic detector.

"Pre-empting a Tom like response- The above is about physics not mind/psychology /biology, the recipient can be an inorganic detector."

Sorry, Georgina, but it is about mind/psychology /biology. The only way you can reach the above conclusions is to assume -- like conventional quantum theory -- that the device is entangled with a brain-mind.

with respect, you are incorrect on this particular matter. The chemical change of a film emulsion in response to exposure to light -Now does not require an entangled brain or mind. Likewise the processes of a digital camera forming a digital output -Now do not require an entangled brain or mind. Information that has taken different lengths of time traveling from emitting Source object to the camera arrive together -Now forming a space-time output. Think cat, mountains, sun.

Seeing is another process. Actualization, sight of, and knowledge of that actualization are outcomes of 3 different processes.

Producing a human seen image from what the camera has recorded involves a further reality interface, the human visual system. For comprehension of what has been output from that system and associated information other neural connections are involved which allow association of memory from prior learning.

It "is the suborn belief that what is seen is in actual fact happening Now". I understood this already when I was a child, and I still wonder why Einstein generalized Poincaré's method of synchronization that is obviously correct only for unchanged distance between sender A and receiver B. Maybe, he was happy having discovered a seemingly elegant interpretation of Lorentz transformation.

Incidentally, I see Georgina quite right. The asymmetry ABA in case of growing or shrinking distance is about physics but not related to psychology or entanglement. The recipient/observer can be an inorganic detector.

John, It would be good to hear your thoughts as you raised "Something has to give.."

Tom, I think you must be assuming the interpretation of QM , that the wave-function formed from all variables associated with an experiment collapse into one outcome upon brain/mind comprehension of the outcome. That particular interpretation does require a brain/mind as part of the experiments apparatus and protocol.

My thoughts on the matter:An unobserved measurement (detector unseen) is not the thing that was the source input but a product of the relation between measuring device and input, Call that P1 (actualized). The experimenter's visual system creates another product from the information recieved from the measuring device. Call that P2 (actualized)-Image in the visual cortex. If the brain /mind has prior learning enabling comprehension of the product of the visual system there will be understanding of the meaning of the outcome, call that P3.

If the model being used is one in which P3 creates the outcome P1 by collapse of the wave-function then the brain /mind is indispensable.However with a uni-temporal underlying reality with sequential change , a process occurring later can not induce the outcome of a process or processes occurring earlier. I.E. P3 is not influencing P1. That would go against the principle of causality. The idea that it can, in other models, seems to me to show that physics has become too 'cosy' with mathematics and not 'cosy' enough with the other sciences.

"Tom, I think you must be assuming the interpretation of QM , that the wave-function formed from all variables associated with an experiment collapse into one outcome upon brain/mind comprehension of the outcome. That particular interpretation does require a brain/mind as part of the experiments apparatus and protocol."

And that assumption is correct in your case.

For if you assumed no wave function collapse, you would not have a detector-dependent hypothesis that you take such pains to justify as objective.

wave function collapse: a mathematical representation of the variables that contribute to the probabilities of outcomes for an experiment is made redundant by knowledge of the outcome. I don't disagree with that. However to have knowledge of the outcome certain processes have to occur first. As I set out in my prior post. P1, then P2 and P3. Quote"Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics."Wikipedia

P3 can not cause P1 if causality is to be preserved. Hence the assumption can be made that though not known P1 exists (is actualized) prior to P2 and P3 by which it is seen and thereby known, given that there is prior learning to interpret/understand what is seen.

I don't think what I was talking about, the way a camera can produces a output independent of brain/mind, needs to involve a wave function. You seem determined to impose that model rather than address the issue of causality that I have raised. Mind only causes redundancy of the mathematical structure representing all that can be known prior to having superseding knowledge of an outcome. It does not cause the first product, P1 the output of information receipt by the inorganic detector. That has to precede sight of that product, and with prior learning to understand the meaning of that sight P3 is obtained. That chain of processes is basic uncontroversial physics and biology,including the principle of causality.

Well, you asked for it. And having gotten fresh eggs which I seldom do, I coddled three for supper last night so I guess I can be patient and gentle about this too.

"However with a uni-temporal underlying reality with sequential change..." is exactly what the construct of simultaneity is, in the sense that if there is a 'here right now, there is also a there right now'. And...

Well, you asked for it. And having gotten fresh eggs which I seldom do, I coddled three for supper last night so I guess I can be patient and gentle about this too.

"However with a uni-temporal underlying reality with sequential change..." is exactly what the construct of simultaneity is, in the sense that if there is a 'here right now, there is also a there right now'. And that does not imply that there isn't a nanosecond delay at arms length between the flick of a Bic lighter and the concert-goers eyeball. It means that correlating two points at once all along a time line is the simultaneity that is relative to the change between the points in a *continuous function* of projective geometry. And if it is specified that measurement is pulled at light velocity rather than treating it as instantaneous measures in plane geometry, then the consequence is that 'something has to give' to prevent the plane from tearing apart. You can do the math yourself, it's not that complicated. What 'gives' in SR is as I stated in paragraph 1, "the value of a span of length in space and/or the value of a span of duration in time". Paragraph 2 denotes 'what gives' in QM and Classicism, which both treat as a uni-temporality being an absolute operational reality rather then as a real analytical construct. There is a profound difference, and for the analytical construct to be real space has to be simply connected. Which is why Tom is emphatic about topological measure space. Connectivity cannot be sustained above light velocity, so the Newtonian uni-temporal absolute measure space goes to shreds.

Where I find it difficult in finding an argument to follow in much of what you have presented is simply that one would have to do all those nuanced qualifications in designing a laboratory experiment. Why call it 'emergent reality'? It's accepted that biometrics are a living machine. Aren't the protocols of real time reaction in known objective theory specific to something like a photoelectric generated instrument display, already assumed to be carefully documented in the specifications from the instrument maker? There is a whole history of artisans that gained high reputation in making crystals and lenses, and various mechanical and electrical experimental devices and components. And all of them while deemed 'second-class citizens of the scientific community' contributed to the growing refinement and theoretical developments of the Golden Age. What you seem to try to generalize into discussion of any theory, and designate as P1 and --- P3 and on, are in any specificity to a real experimental verification of a particular parameter of one theory, are common adjustments and margins of error in calculable component results. Yes, there is this or that facet to take into consideration, and must be in the hard (and difficult) science of verifying that your protocols not only in designing theory measurement parameters in experiments, but in verifying that your apparatus is functionally verifiable in cleanly delivering those parametric results. But is it really necessary to belabor every discussion of theory with all those protocols that only apply to conducting an actual experiment? One great value of theoretical science is that it can be generally abstracted from what is already accepted as experimentally verified. Whereas introducing all the protocols of qualifications in experimental verification can distract or even sometimes corrupt the conclusions sought in purely theoretical argument. But the objective is always 'the object'

Sorry if that was harsh. I don't do eggs much because of the cholesterol, but do like them. So when I get fresh I like to splurge, and suffer the sulfer dioxide. Hold your nose if you like, I'll understand. ;-) jrc

[post script] on SR: Do a grab bag of random selected distance vs. time trajectory comparisons between points. Don't bother with photons or particles and Doppler shift, just the raw projective geometric analysis of two points moving at different uniform velocities. Do some of points diverging at different angles and others converging and a few in parallel. But draw each measure between points at light velocity and without the Lorentz Invariance of SR. Now, the geometric plot of any one set of points might add up okay on a two dimensional piece of paper. But then put them into a Cartesian co-ordinate system of absolute time everywhere in absolute space. What happens?... The changes of distances between points in one set won't add up across space, or across time, with those of points in all other sets. Newtonian measurement space goes to shreds. You can't assume causality without the continuity at light velocity between all points, based only on an a priori assumption that absolute time and space would guarantee it. Which is why SR assigns the absolute value to light velocity and allows the values of time and space to be compensated through Lorentz Invariances. Then points in different sets remain measurably connected at light velocity, but the co-ordinate system is lost. (find a new co-ordinate system)

The simultaneity that you are talking of is observed simultaneity I.E. outputs (products) of near simultaneously received sensory data, fabrications appearing to be in the observer's present NOT a simultaneity due to existing within the same uni-temporal (same and only time everywhere) configuration of the Object universe.

The simultaneity that you are talking of is observed simultaneity I.E. outputs (products) of near simultaneously received sensory data, fabrications appearing to be in the observer's present NOT a simultaneity due to existing within the same uni-temporal (same and only time everywhere) configuration of the Object universe.

Re. your Paragraph 2:You wrote"...and for the analytical construct to be real space has to be simply connected." What do you mean by real space? a. A mathematical space without real world equivalent? b.The space external to an observer?c. Or the space within the fabricated output generated from EM data input? I think that the space-time of SR is a 'likeness'of c. I think the Newtonian absolute space, taking it to be the nothingness not contents is like b.

You wrote "Connectivity cannot be sustained above light velocity, so the Newtonian uni-temporal absolute measure space goes to shreds." I think there is confusion in muddling what is seen and what exists underlying that. The underlying absolute space is unaffected by what anyone/thing does.

John You asked "Why call it 'emergent reality'?" Having looked up the various physics usages of 'emergence' I think it has not been the best choice of word , as I meant it in the way of common parlance;relating to ideas like these- resultant, consequential, coming into new existence, arising as a natural and/or logical consequence.

I have gone to the trouble of explicitly reminding readers that the output reality need not involve a biological observer. You wrote "What you seem to try to generalize into discussion of any theory, and designate as P1 and --- P3 and on, are in any specificity to a real experimental verification of a particular parameter of one theory, are common adjustments and margins of error in calculable component results." I raised the issue of P1 to P3, ( I could have added a another product between them which is the image on the retina)to demonstrate that the actualization of a detector output has to occur prior to observation by a human observer, and thus the brain/mind can be deemed non essential to the output of the detector alone.

John I have not found your reply harsh but very useful in helping me to recognize that I have failed to communicate what I intended. And that is why you have failed to recognize the actual arguments I was trying to present.

item 1: I should have put a comma there - 'for the analytical construct to be real, space has to be simply connected'.

item 2: Newtonian space as you think of it as nothingness, seems to allow a Cartesian co-ordinate system as the reality but is actually an artifact of 'brain-mind' (a phrase that makes me feel like a silly Hippie). Nonetheless, I have...

item 1: I should have put a comma there - 'for the analytical construct to be real, space has to be simply connected'.

item 2: Newtonian space as you think of it as nothingness, seems to allow a Cartesian co-ordinate system as the reality but is actually an artifact of 'brain-mind' (a phrase that makes me feel like a silly Hippie). Nonetheless, I have to also allow that so is spacetime in that it is also an analytical artifact of only two components of reality, time and space. And where I differ from those deeply familiar with both SR and GR and whom are quite sincere in maintaining the integrity of the system, is where the attendant idea that 'there is no region of space devoid of a field' is just that - an attendant idea. Energy, space, and time, are all mutually inclusive to my mind. I can hold a simple cup in my hand and comprehend its function without a word in my mind (feels good, too), but when I try to explain that function it becomes pieces of concept. So there is no 'nothingness' in the universe for Descartes' co-ordinate system to underlay, where there is space there is energy and time. But that also means that Lorentz Invariance is a first approximation. Consider that the spatial parameter is limited to a change in shape only in the direction of motion, the mass parameter is limited to only increase in mass and without a recipcrocal decrease in density, the time parameter is limited to only a 'slowing' of time and without a reciprocal function of light velocity being the limit to how fast time can go. ( If time could go faster then light, we would be forever in the dark )

So there is plenty yet to imagine and try out in physical theory, to allow for fools like me. And I recognize you came to a focus of interest in physics not from a study of textbook examples, but from occasional reading of articles about modern advances in observation and theoretical conjectures which too often are short-cut like the 'God Particle' posing for the Higg's Mechanism. Somewhere along the line it must have dawned on you that there was an interdependence of theory and what makes experiments work, which verify or falsify theory. And that shows through in your efforts to communicate and assimilate new knowledge. It's break time, I've offended Eckard because I can't understand how he accounts for 'Special Relativity is unnecessary'. I really can't imagine how that can both work and also account for time dilation in real technological applications which verify SR and GR. Onward! through the fog! jrc

thank you once again.I agree that the co-ordinate frame put on the concept of absolute space is not an attribute of the space itself but a useful tool. Re.your "There is no nothingness", The idea can be held that space is not attached to or affected by any of the visible or invisible constituents. It can be imagined independent of them, so imagine them away and space is what remains. Space-time is a different kettle of fish.

Your explanations of time are wrapped up in talking about light velocity. Light velocity is relevant to the output 'reality' formed from EM receipt. It is not relevant to what exists independently of that light mediated process. Try to imagine a universe where all EM radiation has been removed, leaving you blind among all of the other co-existing substantial objects. At what time are you and they existing ? Simultaneity can not now be measured by what is seen simultaneously within an observed present output 'reality'.Do you think the concept of simultaneity is now redundant or can you imagine another simultaneity that was obscured by experience of the first kind?

By the way, neither you or Tom have addressed the matter of P3 (conscious awareness /understanding) being incapable of causing P1 inorganic detector output as it violates the principle of cause and effect. Do you refute the argument or agree?

Maxwell is credited with unifying the electrostatic and magnetostatic fields into Electromagnatism, electromagnetic radiation. There has yet to be developed a unified field theory which incorporates gravitation with EMR, but gravitational response can be equated as translating at light velocity across a full field volume which extends far beyond an electromagnetic region of effect. And in aggregate the volume of gravitational field as compared to the EM region is evident in observations of the sun's magnetic field and the longest observed period comets. There is no reason to assume that the prolate orbit of those comets reach apogee at the limit extent of gravitational field volume, but rather at a point of equilibrium within the solar aggregate full field volume. And consider how tiny the comparative mass of the comet is. So, no, a real analytical construct of simultaneity is not dependent on only EMR observations.

The Jihadis just kicked the sleeping Rock 'n' Roll hound from hell. Remember what that age group of the 60's and 80's did in the 'Blue Jean Revolution' on both sides of the Iron Curtain? These Paris attacks today may have wakened a generation that has been ambivalent to the threat of religious fundamentalism to separation of church and state, and the democratic rule of law which laws must obey. Yep, those religious nuts want to kill rock 'n' roll. Wake up kids. jrc

John C wrote: "I've offended Eckard because I can't understand how he accounts for 'Special Relativity is unnecessary'".

Perhaps, John didn't read many of our essays. Having read contest contributions over the years, I wonder if I overlooked essays by John Cox and by Steve Dufourny whose opinions tend to lack proficiency.

You Georgina pointed to causality. If SR essentially violates causality, and I share belonging arguments by Tom van Flandern, then it is perhaps at best a tool of limited usability like non-causal methods in signal processing.

Einstein Relativity is pretty unique in that it permanently requires a strong "Relativity task force" that purifies Wikipedia from alternative ideas. I feel reminded of religious doctrines, Cantor's naive set theory, national socialism, and scientific communism which teachers were or even are forced to propagate.

John Quote"Can P3 cause P1? ... It never worked for me." Do you mean by that, you have never managed to know something external to your mind into existence?

Or do you mean to say the argument doesn't work for you? Do you consider it a trivial matter of no importance or irrelevant? Rather than relevant to mind causes collapse models of QM and the (mind independent )nature of the output of an inorganic reality interface.

I also asked 'Try to imagine a universe where all EM radiation has been removed," ... "Simultaneity can not now be measured by what is seen simultaneously within an observed present output 'reality'. Can you do that? This relates back to your "Something has to give if there is a physically real simultaneity as we imagine it to be"

SR obviously contradicts causality: Causality describes a chain of subsequent events: A cause A precedes its effect B. Then B on its part causes and precedes C, etc. At the end of §3 of “On the Electrodynamics …” Einstein wrote in 1905: “two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon (aufgefasst) as simultaneous events when envisaged from (betrachtet von) a system which is in motion relatively to that system.” If I recall correctly, textbooks inferred the possibility that the causal order ABC is relative. Well, observers may e.g. perceive an order BAC instead. However perception needs not reflect the actual causality. Tom van Flandern aptly called Poincaré synchronization a de-synchronization.

In my Figs. 1 and 2 of my “How Should Humanity …” essay “Peace via Discoveries and Inventions” I tried to explain in what Poincaré synchronization differs from causality.

Thanks for the Woodward effect question. I suspect that this is just due to the limitations of relativity without quantum gravity, but it is interesting.

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 9, 2015 @ 08:25 GMT...

"Tom and Steve A refused to comment on how Lorentz understood the notion observer."

Lorentz understood observers in either rest or moving frames were completely symmetric, i.e., both observers see each others atomic clocks tick more slowly and both observers see each other's mass increase. So far this is the same as SR.

Lorentz also understood if you measured mass first and then time you got the same result as if you measured time first and then mass. This is mostly but not always true for quantum action, of course, and so he did not understand about quantum time. But Lorentz also believed that there was an absolute rest frame that told an absolute time, but his math never worked for that absolute frame or time.

Of course, a quantum universe that is a closed pulse has a decoherence rate that tells a different time from atomic time. With decoherence time there is indeed a kind of absolute moving frame that is the universe boundary moving at c just beyond the CMB. Such a closed universe has a decoherence rate that seems faster exactly as all clocks seem slower with motion.

The notion of a pulsed universe does seem to have an absolute reference as well as two dimensions for time.

Surely, you have to look at what seemingly must be happening at a REALLY fundamental level of reality, before you start discussing higher-level reality? I’m saying that there is no mysterious ABSTRACT apprehension of what-there-is-to-know at a fundamental level in the universe (like laws-of-nature and fundamental information like mass, charge and spin). I’m saying that what-there-is-to-know is apprehended (i.e. somehow, grasped/known/experienced) by REAL things: particles, atoms and molecules.

The fundamental information is clearly the foundation of complex consciousness/observation. I’m saying that subjective experience/consciousness is not something inexplicable that arises ex nihilo, and only for complex living things. I’m saying that the apprehension of what-there-is-to-know is clearly ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the universe, because there is no ABSTRACT comprehension of what-there-is-to-know: there are only real things, like particles, available to apprehend what-there-is-to-know.

No I don't. I don't think that reduction-ism provides all the answers when it comes to what is output from the information input to organisms, neural networks and AI and how 'object' identification, understanding and knowledge occur. The components of the observing system and processes can be broken down, I agree; However to produce the outputs, perception of objects; object recognition and association of related information; understanding and knowledge, requires a certain level of scale and organisation including that obtained via learning or training. The output being emergent products of and consequences of the function of the complex system. That is, novel emergent organisation, not identified in the interactions of far simpler systems of atoms or particles, lacking the requisite complexity and organisation.

There is a huge difference between reacting to the immediate presence of other things, and reacting to one's created prediction of some future presence of other things. The ability to make such predictions is something new, that arises out of some types of complexities.

with respect, I have not got myself mixed up. I do not think that foundational reality is fully existent past, present, and future in a space-time continuum but that the configuration of the Object universe is ever changing each new configuration providing the relations and associated forces that precipitate further change. So although the elements of founadtional reality at the smallest scale are not changing the arrangements of them are changing. In that regard each arrangement of the Object universe is new. So what emerges from complexity is novel arrangements that have functions for the system, such as the pattern of neural connections in the brain corresponding to learning; impossible for lesser scales of structure and organisation.

OK, you seem to agree that no new rules and no new parameter types can emerge out of complexity alone. But there can be no "progress" in a complex system without the introduction of new rules and new parameters.

New superficial arrangements in a complex system are represented by new numerical values for existing parameters. But you have got the problem that seemingly nothing is holding the new arrangements in place.

The ultimate unification of physics balances being AND experience. There is no getting around this.

Outer space is fully invisible and involves full inertia.

The Earth/ground is fully visible and involves the experience of full gravity.

The space between (and in the MIDDLE of) these spaces necessarily constitutes a MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance. Indeed, notice the balanced attraction and repulsion. This space involves half gravity and half inertia.

Talking about complex systems that might be like our (single) universe (i.e. not complex systems like the Mandelbrot Set):

1. You are right in that an EXTERNAL OBSERVER of a mathematically modelled complex system might see superficial lumps and bumps and islands that come and go. These lumps and bumps merely correspond to a different set of number values for the parameters of the system. But the whole system, including this set of number values for the parameters, is merely a consequence of the set of rules and the initial set of seed parameter values.

We have very different conceptions of what constitutes a "complex" system. For me, a complex system is one with a high information content. Information cannot be mathematically modeled - it is a self-contradiction. If the "information" could be mathematically modeled, then it would be "compressible", in which case, it would not be "information" at all. Data can be modeled. Information cannot. The Mandelbrot Set is not complex, anymore than pseudo-random numbers are random; they give the appearance of being complex/random, but in fact are really just simple rule-based systems.

Here is an example of a complex system:

(1) generate a random number.

(2) use the number to look-up an arbitrary behavior to be performed.

(3) perform the looked-up behavior.

In (2), by "arbitrary", I mean specifically that there is no possible way to deduce the behavior (no mathematical model), from the associated number being used as an index for the look-up.

Roughly speaking, this is what brains do. For example, there is no physical reason why a car should stop at a red traffic signal. But there is a logical/symbolic reason. Brains, in effect, translate visual sensory data into indices, then perform the "learned" behavior that has been associated with those constructed indices.

The important point here, under the topic of "physics of the observer", is that the physics of such a system is almost totally irrelevant to determining the behavior. Failing to appreciate this fact is the reason there has been so little understanding of how observers impact physical outcomes; observers don't just disturb the entity being observed, they may respond in ways that are totally divorced from any of the physical attributes of what was observed, other than that those measured attributes can be utilized to construct an "index", that is subsequently used to look-up an associated behavior.

It does not matter. What does matter is that the response cannot be determined from the input alone. The index does not even have to be a number. It need only be one element of a set, a pointer, pointing to the associated neurological response. "Jump!" is not a number, but my brain can take in that visual input (or audible input) and quickly associate a specific behavior with it. But no theory of physics could ever predict/determine that that particular input would produce such a response.

I am saying that agents, things that interpret interactions as having meaning, are an emergent phenomenon, emerging from more basic, physical phenomenon.

Another way to look at it is to say that no thing has any meaning, until there is some thing else (an agent) that gives it that meaning. Natural Selection is the process that created such agents.

In this regard, the concept of a toxin has always intrigued me. How is that a substance can kill me, but not a bird that is immune to the toxin? If you think about it, it cannot be a "physical" interaction, like a bullet smashing your tissues - bullets smash all kinds of tissues. In other words, it is not simply a matter of transferring mass, energy, momentum, electric charge, or any other "physical" attribute, sufficient to damage the recipient. Instead, toxins "mean" something very different to different systems, like "shut down the respiratory system". Toxins are an example of physical substances being issued "meaning". Clearly, agents exist at levels far-below human consciousness, certainly down at least as low as the level of biochemistry.

Agents are what causes the "Physics of the Observer" to transcend Physics. Agents cannot perform any action that violates the laws of Physics. But they (at least the more complex ones) can perform actions that can never be predicted, not even in principle, from the laws of Physics, even if the laws are completely deterministic. It is the complexity of the initial conditions (ignored by Physics), not the simplicity of the laws, that enables agency.

"Agents are what causes the 'Physics of the Observer' to transcend Physics."

As opposed to descend from physics?

"Agents cannot perform any action that violates the laws of Physics. But they (at least the more complex ones) can perform actions that can never be predicted, not even in principle, from the laws of Physics, even if the laws are completely deterministic."

If the laws are deterministic, there must exist a mathematical theory to describe them, even if beyond our present capability to do so -- which suggests, to me, time dependent evolution.

"It is the complexity of the initial conditions (ignored by Physics), not the simplicity of the laws, that enables agency."

"If the laws are deterministic, there must exist a mathematical theory to describe them, even if beyond our present capability to do so -- which suggests, to me, time dependent evolution."

I agree.

As I have posted previously on FQXI, the complexity of the initial conditions is what makes Freewill possible, rather than determinism. If there is not enough "stuff" in the cosmos to construct a memory large enough to store the entire information content of the cosmos (except by being the cosmos), then classical Laplacian determinism cannot function; the problem is not, as is often assumed, lack of computing power, it is lack of memory. That is also why only the present moment exists - insufficient memory to encode anything else.

This seems about as mysterious as anything that we might choose to do or not do. There is no determinate model for prediction of random events, but that does not stop gambling and these actions are predictable based on probability. Since your list is finite and known, the math model will be probabilistic and somewhat useful for prediction. But if the model has little value for predicting action, it will not be useful even though it is a math model.

An infinite list is the same as no list at all. All that flipping a coin does is select one of two actions. Selecting from an infinite random list is the same as selecting anything and appears to have no meaning. The easiest model with no meaning is the identity. This model is true for information and it has limited use for predictions of action.

Is an infinite list the same as no list at all? It may give a direction but no point of exact reference. Fourier dealt with heat conduction in a closed loop.

I maintain that the now and zero distance are natural points of reference while evading measurement and being often ignored in theories. FT is a CT with a necessarily arbitrarily chosen and therefore redundant reference point. Euclid's point is something that doesn't have parts. Georg Cantor's naive set theory has definitely proven useless.

"Selecting from an infinite random list is the same as selecting anything and appears to have no meaning." Exactly. No information (as opposed to mere data) ever has any meaning, not even "heads" or "tails", until something else assigns it that meaning. That is the meaning of "information"; all redundancies, capable of conveying any intrinsic meaning, have been eliminated, from the data conveying the information.

It is easy to predict actions, once the meaning has been assigned: "heads, you win, tails, you lose".

Since the laws of physics are useless for determining how an agent will assign such meanings, the "physics of the observer" is relatively useless at determining how the observer may respond. This does not mean that predictions cannot be made, it just means that predictions concerning observers cannot be based solely on fundamental physics; they must be made using a "theory of mind", incorporating what the observer already knows (a priori), in regards to what is being observed. Thus, if the observer already knows that two particles are created in an anti-parallel spin state, failing to properly account for all the meanings that the observer could attach to observations of such a pair, can result in all sorts of "spooky action at a distance" interpretations etc.

"He realized that his views did not agree with the extreme proposition that all science should be exclusively based on direct sense impressions or data obtained from some machinery facilitating the sense impressions [Einstein, 1954] He gave the example of the system of natural numbers, the numbers we use when counting. The mathematical system of these numbers goes way beyond what one can derive from sense impressions, like the counting of oranges. For example, we use the fact that there exists no highest natural number and there exists an infinity of numbers. The mathematician Peano based the natural number system on axioms and derived mathematical truths, so-called theorems, that certainly cannot be obtained from raw sensory materials. He gave the example of two identical tall buildings, one in New York and one in Paris, and said that one would be, on the basis of raw sense impressions forced to regard them as the same object in the sense of physics. He then stated that there was no danger (of logical wrongdoing) in combining the object as an independent concept with the proper spatio-temporal structure, that is with his space-time. He, therefore, combined the existing thing (the tall building) with all its qualities and takes the geometrical relations to other objects of the world as an additional quality. These geometrical relations involve space-time as a product and tool of our thinking that goes beyond the metric data of clocks and meter measure." (p. 98)

In their purported refutation of Hess-Philipp, Richard Gill et al, completely ignore the role of spacetime, agreeing with the erroneous notion that "all science should be exclusively based on ... sense impressions." They have proved no more than they have assumed.

Agree with you. In fact the senses can be completely misleading and differ from person to person and from groups of people to groups of people. I am reading Pinker's How the Mind Works, the part going into the mind's eye. The ability to see autostereograms is genetically determine!. So much for seeing is believing.

And yet I do not trust Feynman's policy of shut up and calculate over the senses. He likes his formulas and calculations because he can get 7 orders of magnitude accuracy.

So, are we stuck with illusions OR lies, damn lies and statistics?

Do you have a technique to "evaluate" physical reality? (can you explain it in a paragraph?)

My view is based on Karl Popper's rehabilitation of Alfred Tarski's theory of correspondence, for validating true statements. If a mathematical theory in closed form corresponds 1 to 1 with physical predictions, the physical theory is falsifiable by experiment. Example: E = mc^2. It is validated at the large scale by such effects as length contraction and time dilation; at the microscale by the missing binding energy in an atomic fission event. This ability to make logically closed judgements is closely related to the idea of limit in the calculus.

Reducing this to a probability argument is the subject of the attached.

Yes, some of what you are saying seems to be more or less what I am endeavoring to say: a truly complex system is never an initial-rule-based (i.e. “compressible”) system. So an initial set of law-of-nature rules plus initial parameter values are not enough information to describe the resulting truly complex...

Yes, some of what you are saying seems to be more or less what I am endeavoring to say: a truly complex system is never an initial-rule-based (i.e. “compressible”) system. So an initial set of law-of-nature rules plus initial parameter values are not enough information to describe the resulting truly complex universe we observe today. There is much more information content to today’s universe than this.

So an 100% initial-rule-based system like a multiverse is not a theory that can represent our truly complex universe.

But I’m saying that:

1. Information is all about a REAL entity (e.g. a particle) being informed: no abstract entities are informed (e.g. by laws-of-nature); there are no abstract entities RUNNING the universe, there are no abstract entities IN the universe. The real entities/things are particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi-cell living things. In other words, the real entities both MAKE and COMPREHEND the rules, and the rules are physical. (The real entities are the observers.)

2. Corresponding to particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi-cell living things, there are 5 levels of information. Probably only the lowest-level information is representable as mathematical rules. The highest-level information is only approximately representable (i.e. with written or spoken words), seemingly because it is too complicated or bulky to represent with mathematical rules.

3. The initial conditions are a type of rule. The initial law-of-nature rules and the initial conditions ARE the foundational, lowest-level information. There are no meta-level, i.e. higher-level, rules at the foundational-level or at the beginnings of the universe: there was simplicity, not complexity, at the beginning of the universe. “Meta-level” rules are a later development, and the true complexity that we see in the universe requires both new meta-level rules and new initial-condition-type rules.

4. The seeming “complexity” that results from foundational-level rules/information does not of itself evolve new rules. I.e. any “self-organization” lumps and bumps observed in such a system is not a new rule, it’s only an unstable superficial feature. It provides no extra information (i.e. rule) content because the whole system is still completely described by the original rules which created this “self-organization” in the first place. I.e. meta-rules can never evolve out of other rules.

5. The new rules, both meta-level rules and new initial-condition-type rules, are continually injected into the universe BY real entities (particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi-cell living things).

6. All foundational-level information is representable by structured rules (e.g. laws-of-nature): the mathematical representation always includes an “=” sign, categories of information, and the relationships between these categories of information. (Numbers derive from a special type of “information category relationship” where the category cancels out.) So all information is “balanced”, and is all about categories of information and their relationship to other information: all information is completely in context with other information. Information is never isolated stuff without context i.e. information is never mere digital representations.

I asked John "'Try to imagine a universe where all EM radiation has been removed," ... "Simultaneity can not now be measured by what is seen simultaneously within an observed present output 'reality'. Can you do that? This relates back to John's "Something has to give if there is a physically real simultaneity as we imagine it to be". I think that is a useful exercise.

I asked John "'Try to imagine a universe where all EM radiation has been removed," ... "Simultaneity can not now be measured by what is seen simultaneously within an observed present output 'reality'. Can you do that? This relates back to John's "Something has to give if there is a physically real simultaneity as we imagine it to be". I think that is a useful exercise.

A description of a duel simultaneity that can be demonstrated mathematically:It must be remembered throughout that things are seen only by receipt of EM information not any kind of remote knowledge. Scenario:There are two people lets say Alice and Bob, both have their own clock. Bob has a stationary reference frame, Alice moves at high velocity away from Bob. At the instant Bob sees 1 minute elapsed on his near clock he receives light from Alice's clock which forms into an image showing less than 1 minute has elapsed on her clock. (It takes time for the light to reach him so if he waited for the light that would show 1 minute on Alice's clock more than 1 minute would have elapsed on his own.) During this time Alice and her clock have continued to move further away and as Bob sees the less than one minute of Alice she is seeing the full 1 minute of her own clock. Alice's minutes only appear slower to Bob because of the non infinite speed of light carrying information from which his 'Image ' of distant things is formed. Alice's velocity is underestimated as it is calculated as distance traveled according to Bob divided by his own time. So he thinks she has only gone as far as she is seen to go rather than the distance she actually travels despite him.

This is the interesting bit- There are now two different simultaneities: The simultaneity of Bob's present with his full minute showing clock and the image of Alice's slower time AND there is the simultaneity of Bob's clock's completion of a full minute and Alice's clock's completion of a full minute. The latter being the reality of the substantial matter, where the matter called Alice actually is and the configuration of matter corresponding to a time shown on a clock, independent of what is seen via EM transmission , receipt and conversion to output. It is assumed the clocks were synchronized prior to the test and that they remain accurate throughout.

"I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the "wind tunnel," a model where the observer has only so long to live. Each day possibilities decrease as the end approaches. At the same time, the available information increases each day. Then, when possibilities finally all disappear, existence ends. It might be the starting point for a better Hamiltonian and initial conditions in order to model an observer"

This Hamiltonian and other equations here:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928

post approved

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 16, 2015 @ 07:20 GMT

Hi Lee, I spotted and read your initial equations a while ago. I didn't realize that the majority of the presentation was in the contracted post that starts "Footnote". So I'm just pointing that out so others can locate where your ideas are to be found.

You have identified the human condition in your description of the relationship of a human observer to the potentially available information, taking that to be via all forms of media. Though there are also limits to the amount of information a brain can process. Information overload is a problem in itself. The decline in that ability to process information with time varies between individuals. I expect some are on top form until the very end.

"Observation" and "inquiry" seem to me closely related. It is from this association to inquiry that I get mathematical models of inquiry from the late Jon Barwise.

I don't expect readers to follow my links and references all the way to the most basic. So here is the link down to "inquiry":

----- In the FQXI paper "Simple math for questions to physicists" I cite Jon Barwise, Here is the key abstract from him:

Information and Impossibilities

JON BARWISE

Abstract: In this paper I explore informationalism, a pragmatic theory of modality that seems to solve some serious problems in the familiar possible worlds accounts of modality. I view the theory as an elaboration of Stalnaker’s moderate modal realism, though it also derives from Dretske’s semantic theory of information. Informationalism is presented in Section 2 after the prerequisite stage setting in Section 1. Some applications are sketched in Section 3. Finally, a mathematical model of the theory is developed in Section 4.

How many times have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? –Arthur Conan Doyle

You’ve put me in an impossible situation. –Anonymous

[N]othing we imagine is absolutely impossible. –David Hume

------ You can download the PDF of this paper here:

https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039540766#references

----------- Here is an overview of Stalnaker's book on Inquiry:

Inquiry

By Robert C. Stalnaker

Overview

The abstract structure of inquiry - the process of acquiring and changing beliefs about the world - is the focus of this book which takes the position that the "pragmatic" rather than the "linguistic" approach better solves the philosophical problems about the nature of mental representation, and better accounts for the phenomena of thought and speech. It discusses propositions and propositional attitudes (the cluster of activities that constitute inquiry) in general and takes up the way beliefs change in response to potential new information, suggesting that conditional propositions should be understood as projections of epistemic policies onto the world.

A Bradford Book.

About the Author

Robert C. Stalnaker is a professor in the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University.

Reviews

“During the past fifteen years, Robert Stalnaker has published an important series of papers on issues concerning conditionals, possible worlds, and belief. In Inquiry, he brings together themes from these papers and attempts to weave them together into a single line of thought. The result is a book which ... is densely argued and full of interest. One of its admirable features is its style: Stalnaker manages to write lucidly and economically on difficult topics without assuming undue familiarity with the literature and its jargon.”—Mind

That sounds like an interesting approach to the anticipated new FQXi essay question. It will probably be something to do with "the observer", in keeping with the Grant program "Physics of the observer" and the planned multidisciplinary networks of researchers to aid research of that.

From the above quote, it looks like Sherlock Holmes may have been an "informationalist"! ( : )

"The main idea of informationalism is to take the inverse relationship between information and possibility as a guiding tenet. The Inverse Relationship Principle: Whenever there is an increase in available information there is a corresponding decrease in possibilities, and vice versa. " (Information and Impossibilities. Jon Barwise)

To an informationalist, information and possibilities might be prior to space. First the observer feels proper time, not coordinate time. Then space could enter like this:

There is the possibility of being at x:

And at the same time there is the possibility of not being anywhere else:

Together these are the logic of a particle in a situation where only possibilities exist and nothing else.

Then there is information that's available from the past. From that, the frequency or probability that a particle will have been at x is:

And because of the Born rule there is an arrow from possibilities in the future to information available from the past:

In the paper I submitted to FQXI "Simple math for questions to physicists" there is also an arrow from the nonstandard past to its mirror point in the nonstandard future. These are two situations which respectively support possibilities and information available from the past, in the latter case probabilities or frequencies.

It's something that Jon Barwise called an "infomorphism." (Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems)

I am very welcome the last FOXi theme on the observer's physics. It may to serve as an important key to involving a new approaches and research methodology (without any exaggeration!), which is necessary to outcome of physics from present stagnation, in my confidence with many others. I am trying to move by own way that closely related to observer's role in physics. My last article (article) on the cognitive meaning of relativity (ST & GR - in archive) directly touches to this question. It contains also some interpretations related to previous themes of FOXi contests (physical meaning of time, about mutual relation math to reality, etc.) By this, I am just ask you to check this article to decide how it relates to basic purposes of your community, to help me or advice me what better to do with my works.

I understand that such request may seem very strange, but I really do not know how to solve technical and bureaucratic problems to reach my works to small quantity of people who may find there some interest. Actually, I think any solution or innovation that come from side people these hardly may get attention in official science, independently what you will solve or say, however FOXi have declared some opportunity to that.

you can always join the community here and discuss what you have written little by little. Your article is 49 pages long and that is a lot of words to read and process. I speed read through it. There is a lot of introductory material and I wonder whether it is all necessary. It would be a lot more reader friendly if you 'cut to the chase' and get your main insights across without burying them in too many words. Maybe you could do an abridged version. The FQXi essays have a nine page limit and that makes them a reasonable length for readers to manage in one sitting. Page 9 was well explained and interesting to me as you say some things about SR that agree with what I have been writing here.The key point being to always remember that SR is about what is seen. There is a lot in your article, especially about gravity, that you could talk about on this site.

Thank you for kindly answer and your advices. Actually my (ours) trouble is a more serious than simplest inclination to verbosity. I know about 9 pages limit of FQXi. However, how can anybody to think explain cognitive content of Einstein' mysterious works in 9 pages, if even he well know the matter? Meanwhile, to analyze and understand the question it is necessary to look it in the whole context of physics! The problem is, a huge methodological mistake has been admitted by our teachers, by division of physics from philosophy and from logic at all, as well as by its unprecedented mathematisation and next fragmentation of it on the classical and quantum divisions with their uncountable sections, subsections etc. Famous physicist Steven Weinberg writes in his book (as remember) - We, physicists are special people who get a huge satisfaction from different kinds of calculations...

We can understand with you this nice hobby (that may bring some people to Nobel Prize!) However, I will dare to assure you there is other incomparable amazing hobby than the game with symbols and formula. That is - a play with own mind. It however, demands big volume and huge time to explain, that I would like to convince to modern theorists! That is a hopeless job really as I am understand and you are very right!

Here is a propositional attitude: "O observes that the electrons produce a wave pattern." From Wikipedia:

"A propositional attitude is a mental state held by an agent toward a proposition. Propositional attitudes are often assumed to be the fundamental units of thought and their contents, being propositions, are true or false. An agent can have different propositional attitudes toward the same proposition (e.g., “S believes that her ice-cream is cold,” and “S fears that her ice-cream is cold”).

Linguistically, propositional attitudes are denoted by a verb (e.g. "believed") governing an embedded "that" clause, for example, 'Sally believed that she had won'."

(Please see my previous post here.)

post approved

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Nov. 18, 2015 @ 19:40 GMT

In natural language humans implicitly perceive and observe "situations," according to analyses of the linguistic data by the late Jon Barwise (The situation in logic) and others. That this perception and observation of "situations" is implicit. yet pervasive, can be seen by reading an example two times-- first with the words in parentheses and then without--

"Observer O observed (the situation) that electrons in the experiment produced a wave pattern, as if each electron observed (the situation) that there were two possibilities for it, or two slits."

Situation theory made the above, implicit "situation" explicit in a pretty minimalistic mathematical theory. In the paper "Simple math for questions to physicists," this website, I tried applying it to some physics.

Please see my previous post here.

post approved

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Nov. 19, 2015 @ 23:48 GMT

The *conjugate variables* of the observing process are probably possibilities and information-- actually the number of possibilities and the number of pieces of available information. There is a Hamiltonian posted about this in the "alternative theory" blog.

Conjugate variables, when dynamically in balance, add a constant number to the Hamiltonian. Of a system that is born, exists, then dies, this balance only holds true during existence.

Being born means possibilities are increasing but available information lags in increase, and is not in balance. Death means possibilities vanish, while available information freezes-- again, not in balance.

In the posted Hamiltonian, I only modeled existence.

post approved

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Nov. 21, 2015 @ 11:24 GMT

No "information channel": No observer. In an observation process, information needs to flow from the system being observed to the observer. In "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" (Jon Barwise and Jerry Seligman), such an information channel is defined.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5sjLCgAAQBAJ

The process of observation is then:

There are certain possibilities (for state, or for type of situation) for the system being observed.

Through an information channel, information is made available to the observer.

Which reveals that some of the previously possible states are, in light of the information made available, actually impossible.

Repeat up to the accuracy of the observation process.

post approved

Lee Bloomquist replied on Nov. 23, 2015 @ 14:01 GMT

This is a process of observation I based on the work of Jon Barwise in Information and Impossibilities (see link in previous post). I met him at a workshop at Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information titled "The business applications of situation theory." He passed much too early.

It is relevant.How can we modelize the universal informations and encodings.What is the nature of an information? We are at this moment of evolution in the heat and thermo and electromagnetism.How can we insert the gravitational informations in the computing ? Trading at high fréquences are a reality with photonic informations.The speed can be improved with the gravitons and correlated waves.But the real question is ,can we make it ?Spiritually speaking and socially speaking ? What a world,these Tools must be universal and must be utilised with the biggest wisdom and cosnciousness.

It is clear that numbers represent something very important about fundamental reality, because we need numbers JUST AS MUCH AS we need law-of-nature equations to represent fundamental reality, whether at the big bang, or fundamental reality as it is now.

But physics can’t seem to conceptualize what actual physical reality a number could represent, and there is seemingly very little discussion on the issue. So one might (wrongly) conclude that numbers are a non-issue, or one might (wrongly) conclude that a number can safely be considered to be a non-physically-real platonic entity.

Some have concluded that numbers can be understood via Set Theory. But despite the seeming simplicity of pictorially represented Set Theory ideas, Set Theory has a lot of extremely complex concepts when it comes to building numbers out of sets, especially algebraic irrational numbers.

So if it is correct to assume that the underlying fundamental-level reality is relatively simple, and that complexity is a higher-level later development, then Set Theory is not useful for modelling any physical reality that might underlie what we humans represent with number symbols.

To get to the point, any comprehensive theory of reality needs to account for numbers, and any theory of what “an observer” is needs to be compatible with ideas about numbers: are you describing a reality that includes abstract entities and structures, OR are you talking about a reality that only has real entities and structures?

It is necessary that reality grasps/apprehends its own laws. So you have a choice: numbers and laws-of-nature are ABSTRACT structures that are ABSTRACTLY apprehended and acted upon by the universe OR numbers and laws-of-nature represent REAL structures that are apprehended by REAL entities i.e. particles and atoms.

I contend that laws-of-nature are real information category relationship “structures”, and that numbers derive from partial information category relationships where the category “cancels out”.

I contend that this apprehension, i.e. the grasping of different categories of information and their interrelationship, IS subjective experience/subjective consciousness. Consciousness is not something weird and unexplainable. The first step in understanding any “observer effects” is acknowledging that “conscious observers” are intrinsic to the structure of the universe.

From page 27, "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" (Barwise and Seligman):

"Probability theory, and applied mathematics in general, works at the level of types....[note by LB: hence ignoring the particular instances that exist. Types instead characterize any number of particular instances that existed or will exist.]...For a theory of information, however, these particulars, or instances, cannot be ignored."

Reading onward, we find that it is the existence of an instance with parts, i.e. a system of instances which are existing together in a system, that enables the flow of information in an "information channel."

In order to flow, information requires a system of parts that all co-exist.

The numbers, as in probability theory and hence Shannon-like theories of information, don't say how it is that information flows, because they are about numbers hence types of things that existed or will exist; and they are not about that which enables the information to flow.

That's my summary. But I urge readers to see this for themselves.

post approved

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 23, 2015 @ 02:35 GMT

Interesting Lee. Incidentally I think that as well as a system of parts that co-exist there has to be change. I mean by that a static block time existence of a system of co-existing parts still doesn't provide flow. I don't get that impression of change from the expression " a system of instances which are existing together in a system...." Perhaps the word system is used to imply work and so is another way of saying change. Its not clear. Though you are giving a brief summary and perhaps it is more clearly explained in the referenced work. Interesting observation in your last paragraph. Physics does seem to be comprised of many parts that don't readily overlap.

At the workshop mentioned in a previous post here, Prof Barwise, in response to a question, stopped writing on the overhead projector-- and moved in front of the projection lens so as to block the light beam from the projector lens to the screen. The screen went dark of course.

He had just destroyed an information channel. As a result, information stopped flowing.

Then he moved away from his position blocking the light beam, back to writing on the overhead projector. The screen lit up with what he began to write.

He had just created an information channel. As a result, information began once again to flow.

The mathematical language in his book with Seligman, "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" gave him the terms and syntax to express what had just happened-- right there on the screen in front of us.

Creation and destruction of an information channel can, most likely, Not be as clearly expressed in say Shannon's theory of information, based as it is on probability numbers.

Is creation and destruction of information channels relevant to the physics of the Observer?

The idea so far: using the "information channel" to think about the observer based on a theory from the field of logic (informationalism) itself begun from data about natural human language (situation theory). Do readers have suggestions for a next step? "Observers synchronizing clocks" perhaps?

In 2001 the late physicist Jacob Bekenstein along with Hebrew University colleague Avi Mayo published "Black Holes are One-Dimensional" noting, "... viewed as an information absorber or entropy emitter, a black hole in 3–D is fundamentally one-dimensional, verily a portal to a one-dimensional information channel."

An indexed channel the way Barwise describes it, would seem to share this dimensionality, which rules out an independent observer channel. What I mean is, given a line and a point external, in Euclidean space, one and only one line can be parallel to the original. This implies an observer orthogonal to the flow of information, similar to a Turing machine processing data.

Which allows an objective observer -- albeit yielding coherent information only in 2 dimensions. Even though we live in curved spacetime of at least 4 dimensions, and because spacetime is mostly Euclidean, we can accept this 'entanglement' of observer-observed as a faithful representation of reality projected into 3 dimensions.

To be complete, a time parameter must be included. And so the quantum domain is restricted to information theory, and we need an extra degree of freedom for coherent communication between quantum and classical domains.

On the above web page you can see that to resolve the paradox, more equations are needed. This is where the equations of situation theory, channel theory, and informationalism might help.

Also the two contexts-- one in the paper you cite, one here about the work of Jon Barwise-- are different. Meaning is determined by context, so the two meanings of "information channel" are different.

A new context would be needed to resolve these differences in meaning-- a new context with new equations. I will keep thinking about it, but most likely someone else (like Hawking) will have to find these equations.

Forget about observer and observed. WE WANT TO BALANCE BEING AND EXPERIENCE. Full inertia is fully invisible space and no distance in/of space....that means no experience....SO, THERE CAN BE NO FULL, ACTUAL, REAL, TRUE, AND DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF OUTER SPACE AS IT IS.

Full gravity is full distance in/of space and full experience...seen, felt, AND touched.

Half inertia and half gravity is the middle distance in/of space consistent with visible AND invisible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance. So, the falling man feels no gravity. AS MIDDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE are in balance, the feeling of gravity of the man standing upright on the ground is also a balanced INERTIAL resistance.

The ultimate unification of physics balances being AND experience. IMPORTANT.

In dream experience, bodily/visual experience is visible and invisible in balance. Dreams are between (and in the MIDDLE of) our experiences of full gravity (the Earth/ground) and FULL ELECTROMAGNETISM (television).

This tells much about observer and observed. WE WANT TO BALANCE BEING AND EXPERIENCE IN PHYSICS.

The integrated extensiveness of thought (and description) is improved in the truly superior mind. This is top down thinking. Mathematics involves relatively narrow thinking. Top down thinking is sorely lacking in modern physics.

It is a great truth/fact (in physics as well) that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. In fact, the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Again, the ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. The goal is to improve, extend, and integrate the understanding of physics/physical experience/reality, right?

Full gravity involves full experience and full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched.

The experience of full gravity involves fully visible space and full distance in/of space, along with full experience.

Full inertia, as in the direct/full/real/true/actual experience of outer space as it is, completely destroys and eliminates all experience and results in no distance in/of space. That is important. Outer space involves full inertia and fully invisible space.

Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia, with no distance in/of space and distance in/of space in balance.

Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Given full inertia, space disperses.

Full gravity necessarily involves a balanced inertial resistance. A great point.

The key in truly balancing and uniting inertia and gravity is to balance no distance in/of space and distance in/of space fundamentally. Invisible and visible space have to be in fundamental balance in order to truly unite and balance gravity and inertia. That is a very important and a most excellent fact. Confirming this, notice that the eye is both visible and invisible. Your experience of your eye is invisible, and yet this eye/body is also visible (as the semi-visible dome of the eye/body). It is a hugely significant fact/truth that visible and invisible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance necessarily is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia.

The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. We want to do this with gravity and inertia. Excellent.

The ultimate understanding of physics balances being and experience. This is very important, and it is entirely correct.

The ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. The falling man feels no gravity but is experiencing acceleration. The man standing upright on the Earth/ground experiences full gravity as it is seen, felt, AND touched. This involves fully visible space and full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, and touched. So, gravity and inertia are balanced in each case; as the gravity is understood as the acceleration is. Accordingly, the feeling of gravity is also understood as a balanced inertial resistance. The balanced inertia and gravity are understood as having increased together. This means that the experience of these two spaces are fundamentally in balance in relation to inertia and gravity. Again, we want to balance being and experience; so vision (it is visible) beings invisibly inside the body/eye. Therefore, with the man standing upright on the Earth/ground, he is experiencing distance and no distance in/of space visibly and invisibly in a balanced fashion in relation to both spaces and in relation to both inertia and gravity. The invisible distance in/of space and the visible distance in/of space are the same distance fundamentally, and they are both in balance in relation to both inertia and gravity. The distance in/of space is still balanced and constant in the case of both spaces. The gravity and inertia are fundamentally balanced in both cases (the falling man and the man standing upright on the Earth/ground). Again, we want to balance being and experience in the ultimate unification and understanding of physics.

THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS BALANCES BEING AND EXPERIENCE, SO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

FULL INERTIA, outer space, fully invisible. NO DISTANCE. OUTER SPACE IS NOT (AND CANNOT BE) EXPERIENCED AS IT IS....that means there is NO direct, true, real, actual, and full experience of outer space at all. Outer space ITSELF involves no experience AT ALL in relation to being....

THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS BALANCES BEING AND EXPERIENCE, SO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

FULL INERTIA, outer space, fully invisible. NO DISTANCE. OUTER SPACE IS NOT (AND CANNOT BE) EXPERIENCED AS IT IS....that means there is NO direct, true, real, actual, and full experience of outer space at all. Outer space ITSELF involves no experience AT ALL in relation to being.

Half gravity and half inertia...invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance...MIDDLE DISTANCE. The middle distance in/of space still DOES have the property of visibility. Now, consider the invisible and semi-visible eye (or eye/body) in relation to both the middle distance in/of space and the full distance in/of space. Consider how this writing proves that the middle distance in/of space and the full distance in/of space are necessarily in balance.

FULL GRAVITY, the Earth/ground, FULLY VISIBLE. FULL DISTANCE (seen, felt, AND touched). The feeling of gravity is a balanced INERTIAL resistance. Consider that the falling man feels NO GRAVITY, but he IS experiencing ACCELERATION.

VISION (it is VISIBLE) begins INVISIBLY INSIDE THE EYE/BODY. IMPORTANTLY, NOW, very carefully consider ALL OF the following ALONG WITH THAT:

Middle distance and full distance in balance regarding being AND experience. Great. The eye is BOTH INVISIBLE and visible (SEMI-VISIBLE as the dome of the eye/body). The FULLY VISIBLE BODY then extends full distance. (Watch someone else touch the top of their FULLY VISIBLE body/head with their VISIBLE hand.) THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS BALANCES BEING AND EXPERIENCE. SO, MOST IMPORTANTLY, MIDDLE AND FULL DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE ARE IN BALANCE.

Notice, the man standing upright on the Earth/ground has full experience, as full inertia (outer space) entirely eliminates our experience (relationally and comparably).

The man standing on the Earth/ground is not moving relative to the middle OR full distances in/of space. Accordingly, the feeling of gravity is necessarily then understood as a balanced INERTIAL resistance.

Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent the fundamental physically-real information that informs reality. The reality that is informed is clearly REAL things: particles atoms and molecules. Unless you want to go into the magical-mystery woo-woo realm of abstract entities being informed by abstractly existing mathematical rules.

Seemingly Tom and Lee B. are followers of woo-woo versions of reality.

post approved

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 04:00 GMT

Lorraine,

Did you consider http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm too?

Incidentally, how did you understand informs in "information that informs reality"? The original meaning of to inform is transmitting a piece of information to someone, and if you have information about something, you know something about it. Transmission is unidirectional.

What do you think about the idea that particles and fields are the foundations of reality? Fields can certainly have energy states. Momentum, spin and other kinds of measureables represent the properties of a specific field. Why can't we imagine more generalized kinds of fields? What about a field with energy states that can change the properties of a photon, change its speed of light? Or kick it into another a hidden space-time? Then it decays back to a regular photon and returns to normal space time. Is it wrong to imagine such things?

Obviously law-of-nature relationship information cannot come from TRANSMISSION of information. On the contrary, law-of-nature relationship information is the FOUNDATION of information transmission: e.g. in any particle - particle interaction (call one particle “the messenger”), BOTH particles are affected/informed/transformed according to law-of-nature relationships. So firstly, all information transmission is based on the bedrock foundation-stone of law-of-nature relationship information; and secondly, this information transmission is NOT unidirectional.

I would agree with Joe Kolecki that “In order for the observers to learn about the system, they must cause at least one quantum of "information" (energy, momentum, spin, or what-have-you) to pass from themselves …” This indicates that an observer is not merely a passive recipient of information, but an active one i.e. “they must CAUSE …” a perturbation i.e. literally create some new information. This fundamental-level information is representable in the form of a mathematical equation.

I think that “fields” are most likely just one way of symbolically representing information relationships experienced by particles, atoms and molecules. What actually exists are particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things and multi-cell living things, that all create and experience the information relationships that we call physical reality.

What is your opinion about the article on http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm ?

Lorraine

1. Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 04:00 GMT

Lorraine,

Did you consider http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm too?

Incidentally, how did you understand informs in "information that informs reality"? The original meaning of to inform is transmitting a piece of information to someone, and if you have information about something, you know something about it. Transmission is unidirectional.

++++

2. Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT

Eckard,

Re "information that informs reality":

Obviously law-of-nature relationship information cannot come from TRANSMISSION of information. On the contrary, law-of-nature relationship information is the FOUNDATION of information transmission: e.g. in any particle - particle interaction (call one particle “the messenger”), BOTH particles are affected/informed/transformed according to law-of-nature relationships. So firstly, all information transmission is based on the bedrock foundation-stone of law-of-nature relationship information; and secondly, this information transmission is NOT unidirectional.

I would agree with Joe Kolecki that “In order for the observers to learn about the system, they must cause at least one quantum of "information" (energy, momentum, spin, or what-have-you) to pass from themselves …” This indicates that an observer is not merely a passive recipient of information, but an active one i.e. “they must CAUSE …” a perturbation i.e. literally create some new information. This fundamental-level information is representable in the form of a mathematical equation.

Lorraine

3. Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 4, 2015 @ 01:16 GMT

Eckard,

P.S.

In a computer, matter with special properties is specially arranged so that a chain of the above-described fundamental-level information interactions always leads to required “outputs” for given “inputs”. So in a computer, fundamental-level information interactions can be used to reliably “process” binary-digital representations of higher-level information.

But what is this “higher-level” information? It’s complicated, but “tree” is a high-level subjective category of information, whereas “mass” is a fundamental-level subjective category of information. “Tree” does not exist from the point of view of fundamental reality, like particles.

For English speakers, the written or spoken word “tree” represents the experience of “tree”. I.e. the subjective experience is the true information, and the written or spoken word “tree” is a REPRESENTATION of the true information. In a computer, binary-digital representations of e.g. words are processed via fundamental-level information interactions. I.e., in a computer, representation of representations are being “processed”.

Similarly in a computer, representations of our math equations can also be solved via being broken down into intermediate steps and each step being “processed” via a chain of fundamental-level information interactions, leading to the correct outcome/solution.

But clearly, the fundamental-level information relationships that underlie what we represent by law-of-nature equations don’t have any computers behind-the-scenes processing equations and leading to outcomes: there are no steps where the law is symbolically represented as a mathematical equation; further, there are no steps whereby a mathematical equation is symbolically represented by physical matter that in turn represents binary digits; further, there are none of the intermediate steps required to “process” the symbolic representations of equations. There is no more fundamental-level information underlying law-of-nature relationships.

A relationship is not yet information. So called law-of-nature equations are certainly not information in the sense Shannon used the notion and in which technology is benefiting from information theory.

While you are with the majority who are calling these DEQs the bedrock of physics, I beg to be open for the possibility that physics cannot at all completely describe reality. I even don't consider DEQs but integral equations basic.

Anyway, in reality there is definitely no transmission from the future back into to the past.

Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent the fundamental physically-real information that informs reality. The reality that is informed is clearly REAL things: particles atoms and molecules. Unless you want to go into the magical-mystery woo-woo realm of abstract entities being informed by abstractly existing mathematical rules.

Seemingly Tom and Lee B. are followers of woo-woo versions of reality.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 04:00 GMT

Lorraine,

Did you consider http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_T

hinking/observer.htm too?

Incidentally, how did you understand informs in "information that informs reality"? The original meaning of to inform is transmitting a piece of information to someone, and if you have information about something, you know something about it. Transmission is unidirectional.

++++

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 05:59 GMT

Lorraine,

What do you think about the idea that particles and fields are the foundations of reality? Fields can certainly have energy states. Momentum, spin and other kinds of measureables represent the properties of a specific field. Why can't we imagine more generalized kinds of fields? What about a field with energy states that can change the properties of a photon, change its speed of light? Or kick it into another a hidden space-time? Then it decays back to a regular photon and returns to normal space time. Is it wrong to imagine such things?

Jason

Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT

Eckard,

Re "information that informs reality":

Obviously law-of-nature relationship information cannot come from TRANSMISSION of information. On the contrary, law-of-nature relationship information is the FOUNDATION of information transmission: e.g. in any particle - particle interaction (call one particle “the messenger”), BOTH particles are affected/informed/transformed according to law-of-nature relationships. So firstly, all information transmission is based on the bedrock foundation-stone of law-of-nature relationship information; and secondly, this information transmission is NOT unidirectional.

Re http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_T

hinking/observer.htm :

I would agree with Joe Kolecki that “In order for the observers to learn about the system, they must cause at least one quantum of "information" (energy, momentum, spin, or what-have-you) to pass from themselves …” This indicates that an observer is not merely a passive recipient of information, but an active one i.e. “they must CAUSE …” a perturbation i.e. literally create some new information. This fundamental-level information is representable in the form of a mathematical equation.

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 14:17 GMT

Jason,

I think that “fields” are most likely just one way of symbolically representing information relationships experienced by particles, atoms and molecules. What actually exists are particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things and multi-cell living things, that all create and experience the information relationships that we call physical reality.

Lorraine

Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 4, 2015 @ 01:16 GMT

Eckard,

P.S.

In a computer, matter with special properties is specially arranged so that a chain of the above-described fundamental-level information interactions always leads to required “outputs” for given “inputs”. So in a computer, fundamental-level information interactions can be used to reliably “process” binary-digital representations of higher-level information.

But what is this “higher-level” information? It’s complicated, but “tree” is a high-level subjective category of information, whereas “mass” is a fundamental-level subjective category of information. “Tree” does not exist from the point of view of fundamental reality, like particles.

For English speakers, the written or spoken word “tree” represents the experience of “tree”. I.e. the subjective experience is the true information, and the written or spoken word “tree” is a REPRESENTATION of the true information. In a computer, binary-digital representations of e.g. words are processed via fundamental-level information interactions. I.e., in a computer, representation of representations are being “processed”.

Similarly in a computer, representations of our math equations can also be solved via being broken down into intermediate steps and each step being “processed” via a chain of fundamental-level information interactions, leading to the correct outcome/solution.

But clearly, the fundamental-level information relationships that underlie what we represent by law-of-nature equations don’t have any computers behind-the-scenes processing equations and leading to outcomes: there are no steps where the law is symbolically represented as a mathematical equation; further, there are no steps whereby a mathematical equation is symbolically represented by physical matter that in turn represents binary digits; further, there are none of the intermediate steps required to “process” the symbolic representations of equations. There is no more fundamental-level information underlying law-of-nature relationships.

I think physics already pretty much knows the TYPES of elements of reality - there are NO TYPES of elements that are unknown to us: firstly, there are THINGS (strings??, particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things and multi-cell living things); and secondly, there are the physical structures/law-of-nature INFORMATION RELATIONSHIPS that (only for fundamental-level reality) are representable by mathematical equations.

Re “Is the space time continuum a solution to some differential equation”:

No. I consider that “space” and “time” are due to information relationships, and information relationships are REPRESENTABLE by mathematical equations. My assumption is that the particle-type things came first, and they created/built the information relationships from scratch i.e. physically real things built physical reality, including "space" and "time", out of information relationships.

Respectfully, I disagree. The physics constants c and G are mysteriously given, not calculated. Are they unchangeable dictates of a Creator? Or can they be manipulated by some energetic field yet to be discovered?

Thank you for defending the "malicious deletions" of my posts. The fact that my description of alien hyper-drive technology is still there probably means there is no malicious intent. It's probably just an accident/database issue.

Physics claims to be about PHYSICAL reality: once you start getting into supposing that abstract entities exist, all bets are off, and you are in la-la land, and you can fabulate any story you like, totally unhinged from any backup in physical reality.

But there is no need to wildly speculate; there is no need to suppose that some amazing thing not yet discovered is going to answer all your questions; and there is no need to suppose that new, cool, awesome and cutting-edge equations will answer all your questions either: just look more carefully at what is already known to exist.

In essence "I contend that laws-of-nature are real information category relationship “structures”, and that numbers derive from partial information category relationships where the category “cancels out”".

I'm claiming that what we represent with number symbols, even c G e and pi, ultimately DERIVE from the same physically-real information category relationship structures as laws-of-nature. I'm also claiming that the numbers that represent the “discontinuous” aspects of the physical outcomes of quantum decoherence [1], are newly-created information category relationship structures where the category “cancels out”. I’m saying that THINGS [2] create new INFORMATION RELATIONSHIPS/physical outcomes.

I’m claiming that we don’t need to look to mysterious abstract entities for the solution to “the number problem”: just look at what is already known to exist.

Lorraine

1. “quantum mechanics, via decoherence, is constantly injecting new bits of information into the world”, The Computational Universe by Seth Lloyd, in Information and the Nature of Reality, Cambridge University Press, 2010 .

Your referral to abstract entities makes me want to double down on the importance and beauty of God, gods, religions, magic, and all things that inspire spiritual and religious experience. And trust me, I am no light weight when it comes to math, physics, science or reason. I can even see the grey areas where new physics could fit.

You are right in excluding abstractions, But mathematics itself is an abstraction by itself. Abstractions as means of comunication between humans can not be avoided. I see a serious mind being applied to subject in your comments.

PIco Physics is based on the basics of this discussion thread. PicoPhysics understands "The observation is an abstraction...

You are right in excluding abstractions, But mathematics itself is an abstraction by itself. Abstractions as means of comunication between humans can not be avoided. I see a serious mind being applied to subject in your comments.

PIco Physics is based on the basics of this discussion thread. PicoPhysics understands "The observation is an abstraction – a projection of reality on the observer."

Navigation: picophysics->Concepts->Observer & Observation.

The abstract of article states as below:

An observation consists of multiple stages – (Network of parallel and serially executed steps). Each stage involves one or more set of similarly classifiable objects. Subject Selection, Object Identification, Experiencing the subject, Recording, Cross-fertilization, Measurement, Communication and External Cross-Fertilization are elements of an observation. The Cause & Effect Logic is central to cross-fertilization of experience with current knowledge base that translates an experience into observation.

Among these stages, Cross-Fertilization has important bearing on modern science, which deals with knowledge base assessable to observer, which makes an observer feel, what he is observing re-enforces his pre-conceived notions.

I opened this site to say some words, on recent news about gravitation waves being observed. As a Pico-Physicist it has been concluded on gravitational waves that speed of wave propagation will be inversely related to wave amplitude, as source of substance constituting the wave has fixed capacity to supply and depends on surface area of disturbance facing the external universe.

Thus these waves are very different from other waves, like disturbance propagated in a MEDIUM, or quantized radiations. The propagation speed (Action at a distance) is infinite (since conservation that limits the speed is not applicable to space) and non-conservation of space, makes the source dependant on remaining two of three physical dimensions of space. It is possible to conceive physical disturbance of a magnet or charge to propagate as a wave to their opposite charge/pole. But for Gravitational waves, the opposite is space at large. That is also the reason, gravitation is a unidirectional phenomenon, attraction only.

The eye is the body. The eye is invisible, AND it is visible. It is touched, and it is not touched. The eye/BODY is ALSO SEMI-VISIBLE (as the dome of the eye/body), as the balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space. So, it is SEMI-DETACHED in relation to touch/tactile experience; as the fully visible body extends full distance in the experience of full gravity that involves the fully visible Earth/ground. The FULLY VISIBLE BODY is then ATTACHED in relation to touch/tactile experience. Importantly, the MIDDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE experiences of space are in balance. We want to balance/"match up" being and experience. Watch someone else at full distance touch the top of their fully visible body/head with their fully visible hand. Being and experience are in balance, as MIIDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE are in balance. The feeling of gravity is a balanced INERTIAL resistance.

The ultimate unification and understanding of physics balances being AND experience, and it combines, balances, and includes opposites.

This proves that Einstein's general theory of relativity did not fully and extensively describe and explain gravity, nor did it truly and extensively explain the balanced and true relation between inertia and gravity.

Basically I’m saying that physical reality IS subjective experience, “consciousness” if you like. Reality is not dualistic: reality is not divided into (1) the coarse physical, and (2) the spiritual/abstract/platonic/conscious/creative realms where all the finer and more subtle essences reside. The “finer and more subtle essences” are physically evidenced e.g. by laws-of-nature (i.e. information category relationships) and by complex molecular structures which “talk to each other”.

The things of reality are truly creative and conscious, subjective and interrelated. But there is no OVERALL god-like entity that is creative and conscious, that can be praised or blamed for everything, or that will save the things of reality from the consequences of their own actions.

Reality is more subtle, more difficult, more alive, more interesting than a simplistic all-knowing creator-god model of reality would allow. And reality is also more subtle, more difficult, more alive, more interesting than physics, with its abstract/platonic realm of numbers and laws-of-nature would allow. Both physics’ and religion’s dualistic views of reality are cop-outs which avoid facing up to the actual nature of reality.

There is no division into God and not-God; there is no simplistic objective reality which can be fully specified by symbols on a T-shirt. There is only the subjective information experience of things (particles, atoms, molecules, single-cell living things, and multi cell living things) which IS physical reality.

Yes, technology is benefiting from information theory, but it is important to be very clear about what is actually happening.

The communication of information from one person to another can only be achieved via representing information symbolically. A spoken or written word is a symbolic representation of consciously experienced information. Similarly if the communication is...

Yes, technology is benefiting from information theory, but it is important to be very clear about what is actually happening.

The communication of information from one person to another can only be achieved via representing information symbolically. A spoken or written word is a symbolic representation of consciously experienced information. Similarly if the communication is via email, physical states inside the computer represent binary digits, which in turn represent words in a particular language, which in turn represent consciously experienced information.

To receive a communication, a person interacts with physical, symbolic representations of information, like written words (e.g. on paper or computer screen) or spoken words (soundwaves), and the person then subjectively experiences information. This process is so commonplace, and so seamless, that few people note the difference between information and representations of information.

So no matter what Shannon and others might have said, symbolic (e.g. binary digital) representations of information are not actually information. Only the subjective experience of information is information. But physics seems to be unable to face up to the reality of subjective experience.

The underlying foundation of this information/subjective experience is law-of-nature interactions with reality. You might say that laws-of-nature "interpret" the interaction: the same interaction setup, with different laws-of-nature, would have different information outcomes. So laws-of-nature are a fundamental necessity to the acquisition of information: they are the foundations of information.

I am NOT saying that differential equations are the bedrock of physics. I am saying that law-of-nature equations REPRESENT an underlying information relationship that underlies all other information in the universe. I am trying to point out that there is a difference between actual reality and representations of reality.

I agree that “that physics cannot at all completely describe reality” and that “there is definitely no transmission from the future back into to the past”

Stand upright. Consider the range of gravitational feeling. Look downwards at the Earth/ground. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. It is the balanced difference involving full distance and middle distance in/of space that accounts for this range of gravitational feeling. Full gravity involves the experience of the fully visible body. Middle distance and full distance are in balance.

Why Einstein’s falling man feels no gravity:

The fundamental and true significance of the falling man is that he is in and experiencing invisible space consistent with this most important and fundamental new law of physics: Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. The eye is the body. The eye is experienced as invisible (detached from touch, beginning distance). A person's eye is also semi-visible as the dome of the eye/body that is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. The fully visible body then extends full distance, and it is attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. We want to balance being and experience. So, the falling man feels no gravity as a result of the gravitational/inertial balancing that involves the direct experience of the middle distance in/of space. The man standing on the ground feels gravity, as he is experiencing full distance in/of space and FULL GRAVITY.

He is also experiencing the middle distance in/of space in balance. The feeling of gravity is understood as a balanced INERTIAL resistance. Again, we want to balance being AND experience.

In other words, the falling man feels no gravity as a result of the gravitational/inertial balancing that involves the direct experience of the middle distance in/of space. The man standing on the ground feels full gravity, as he is experiencing full distance in/of space and fully visible space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. He is also experiencing the middle distance in/of space in balance. The feeling of gravity is understood as a balanced INERTIAL resistance. Again, we want to balance being AND experience. MAGNIFICENT !

The falling man and the man standing on the Earth/ground experience inertia and gravity insofar as this involves the middle distance in/of space and the full distance in/of space in balance in relation to both being and experience. So, the falling man feels no gravity; and yet he is experiencing gravity. The feeling of gravity is also a balanced INERTIAL resistance, as the man standing on the ground is not moving relative to BOTH the middle distance and the full distance in/of space. We want to balance being and experience in relation to both gravity and inertia. The feeling of gravity is understood as the BALANCED difference regarding the middle distance and the full distance in/of space, AS THESE TWO SPACES ARE IN BALANCE IN RELATION TO BOTH BEING AND EXPERIENCE. We want the full distance and middle distance in balance in relation to BOTH being and experience. Full gravity involves FULLY VISIBLE SPACE and FULL DISTANCE in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Now, the middle distance and the full distance in/of space are in balance; as we want to balance being AND experience. Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Notice the balanced attraction and repulsion. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Given full inertia, space disperses. There is (and can be) no real/actual/true/direct/FULL experience of outer space (i.e., full inertia) AS IT IS, as outer space does entirely eliminate and preclude all of our experience (resulting in ZERO distance in/of space given full inertia). Full gravity involves full experience, as full inertia involves no experience.

Thanks for announcing the beginning of an ambitious new program. In your questions: Which the answers depend on how we think of observers?

The term observer has a number of non-equivalent uses in science. In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect. To know more I’m sharing with you original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

The ultimate unification (AND understanding) of physics balances being and experience. Here is solid proof.

EINSTEIN'S TURN TO FALL. TOP THIS !!!

WHY THE FALLING MAN FEELS NO GRAVITY:

We want to balance being and experience. Gravity pertains to visibility and distance in/of space (seen, felt, AND touched). The falling man feels no gravity because the gravity cancels or balances at HALF (with/as the MIDDLE DISTANCE). SO, THE FALLING MAN FEELS NO GRAVITY CONSISTENT WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL AND GREAT TRUTH/FACT IN PHYSICS: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance IS the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. FULL GRAVITY involves FULL DISTANCE in/of space and FULL EXPERIENCE (seen, felt, AND touched). We want to balance being and experience. The MIDDLE DISTANCE and the FULL DISTANCE are in balance.

Outer space involves full inertia, and it is FULLY INVISIBLE (and black). Notice that there can be no direct/FULL/real/true/actual experience of outer space AS IT IS at all. We want to balance being and experience. So, predictably then, full inertia results in NO EXPERIENCE. Now, the eye is invisible and visible (AS THE SEMI-VISIBLE DOME OF THE EYE/BODY). It is touched, and it is not touched. The eye is the body. So, consider the eye in relation to the MIDDLE DISTANCE. GREAT !!!

Notice that the Earth/ground involves FULL GRAVITY, and it is FULLY VISIBLE (AND OPAQUE).

The feeling of gravity of the man standing on the Earth/ground necessarily is a balanced INERTIAL resistance.

By Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

(The world's leading theoretical physicist)

I DEMAND ACADEMIC HONESTY IN PHYSICS.

DIMEGLIO FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFIES WAKING AND DREAM PHYSICS: HERE IS THE PROVEN UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, INCLUDING PROOF OF WHAT DREAMS REALLY AND TRULY ARE:

In dreams, we are CONSCIOUS AND ALIVE in conjunction with the fundamental EXPERIENCE of our GROWTH AND BECOMING OTHER THAN WE ARE. Therefore:

1) Dreams balance being AND experience.

2) Dreams balance conscious AND unconscious experience.

3) Dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE.

4) There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

5) BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND visible IN BALANCE in dreams.

6) DREAM EXPERIENCE IS THAT OF THE MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE.

7) Dream experience is you and other than you are IN BALANCE.

These are all very important and clear facts that will need to be learned and disseminated.

===========================================================

The ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. There is no getting around this. It is not a matter of "observer" and "observed".

Stand up and look at the Earth/ground. Full gravity involves fully visible space and full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. The eye is the body. It is invisible and visible. The eye is SEMI-DETACHED in relation to touch/tactile experience. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. (Your experience of your eye is invisible, and yet the eye is ALSO visible as the dome of the eye/body.) Vision (it is VISIBLE) begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Full gravity involves full experience. Comparatively and importantly, full inertia (outer space) involves no experience; as we want to balance being AND experience. OUTER SPACE (FULL INERTIA) IS FULLY DETACHED AND ENTIRELY REMOVED FROM OUR TOUCH/TACTILE EXPERIENCE.

UNDERSTANDING THE MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE: Carefully consider that invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. The middle distance has the property of visibility. Whereas outer space involves full inertia (as it is fully invisible and black), the Earth/ground involves the experience of FULL GRAVITY (and it is fully visible and opaque). Outer space (full inertia) involves no experience, as we want to balance being AND experience. We want to balance middle distance and full distance. GREAT. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Given full inertia, space disperses. Notice that the middle distance (itself) involves balanced attraction and repulsion. Stand up and look down at the Earth/ground. The middle distance in/of space and the full distance in/of space are in balance, as we want to balance being and experience. GREAT !

The feeling of gravity of the man standing on the Earth/ground is a balanced INERTIAL resistance.

Stand up. Consider the invisible experience of the eye. The eye is the body. Now consider the bodily/visual experience of the fully visible body. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. We want to balance being AND experience. Now, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is visible AND invisible IN BALANCE. WE WANT TO BALANCE BEING AND EXPERIENCE. Dreams fundamentally balance being and experience. Dream experience is consistent with bodily (INCLUDING visual) experience. Dream experience is that of the MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE.

Accordingly, Einstein did not fully and properly understand gravity and inertia. He did not understand that THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS BALANCES BEING AND EXPERIENCE, AND IT COMBINES, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES OPPOSITES. He did not understand that there is (and there can be) no man IN outer space, as this is full inertia.

Einstein should have considered the man standing on the Earth/ground; as balance and completeness go hand in hand; as the FULLNESS and extensiveness of experience are to be considered as well. Einstein should have considered and understood dreams, but he did not.

I have a double unification of gravity and electromagnetism, with one unification reinforcing and supporting the other. Dream experience is between (and in the MIDDLE of) the experiences of TV (as full electromagnetism) and the Earth/ground (as full gravity), thereby proving and confirming this DOUBLE unification of gravity and electromagnetism. TV is an experience of the INVISIBLE eye. Full gravity is experienced with/by the FULLY VISIBLE body. GREAT !!! DREAM EXPERIENCE IS SEMI-DETACHED IN RELATION TO TOUCH/TACTILE EXPERIENCE. BODILY/VISUAL experience is invisible AND visible IN BALANCE in dreams. MAGNIFICENT !!!

I have a double unification of gravity and inertia as well. WE WANT TO BALANCE BEING AND EXPERIENCE IN THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION (AND UNDERSTANDING) OF PHYSICS. I HAVE PROVEN WHY AND THAT THIS IS SO.

Proof that Einstein did not fully and properly understand gravity and inertia:

The space that is between (and in the MIDDLE of) the Earth/ground (full gravity, fully visible space, attached in relation to touch/tactile experience) AND outer space (full inertia, fully invisible space, black space, fully detached and entirely removed in relation to touch/tactile experience) IS NECESSARILY THE MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE CONSISTENT WITH HALF INERTIA AND HALF GRAVITY AND BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION. This space is invisible and visible in balance. This space DOES have the property of visibility. Notice that IT has balanced attraction and repulsion. Stand up and look down at the Earth/ground. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Vision (it is visible) begins invisibly inside the eye/body. We want to balance being AND experience. Full distance and middle distance are in balance. Full inertia results in no experience, as there really is no man IN outer space. The feeling of gravity of the man on the Earth/ground is a balanced INERTIAL resistance. The eye is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Again, we want to balance being and experience, and the middle distance and full distance are in balance. Notice the balanced attraction and repulsion, and we are not moving in relation to either of these two spaces when we are standing on the Earth/ground. Here is a new and great law of physics: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (half gravity and half inertia). Notice the balanced attraction and repulsion. HERE IS WHERE EINSTEIN WENT WRONG. Given full inertia, space disperses. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. The full distance and middle distance are in balance. We want to balance being and experience. The ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. Einstein did not understand gravity. He did not understand inertia. He did not understand that the ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. He did not understand the fundamental nature of our physical experience. Einstein failed to consider the man standing on the ground. Einstein went wrong by trying to separate, distinguish, or isolate being and experience, and by limiting his considerations to "observer" and "observed". Again, the superior understanding involves the balance of being AND experience. He also failed to see that balance and completeness go hand in hand, as one has to consider the FULLNESS and extensiveness of our experience as well. Full gravity involves full experience. Full inertia, comparatively, involves no experience.

Notice that the eye is the body. It is invisible AND also semi-visible (as it is the VISIBLE dome of the eye/body AS WELL). The eye is touched and it is not touched. It involves the balanced experience of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space, as we want to balance being and experience. The eye is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Look directly downward at the Earth/ground in the day, as full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched; then watch someone else (at full distance) touch the top of their FULLY VISIBLE head/body. WE WANT TO BALANCE BEING AND EXPERIENCE, AS THE MIDDLE DISTANCE AND FULL DISTANCE ARE IN BALANCE. MAGNIFICENT !!! LOOK directly overhead at night. In a BALANCED fashion, half invisible and half inertia are THEN understood in relation to full inertia (outer space, fully invisible) as half visible and half gravity are understood in relation to fully visible space (full gravity, opaque, the Earth/ground). The middle distance and the full distance are in balance. We want to balance being AND experience....Notice that the fully visible body extends full distance in relation to fully visible space and touch, AS the middle distance and the full distance are in balance....We want to balance being and experience.

Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance IS (logically, clearly, AND fundamentally) the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. GREAT !!!

By Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

=======================================================

HERE IS PROOF OF INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL EQUIVALENCY

Why is my 12-10-15 post ignored?

Also consider these most important facts regarding physics/physical experience:

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. Dream experience is FUNDAMENTALLY consistent with this great truth/fact. Indeed, if the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience, we would then be incapable of growth and becoming other than we are.

DIMEGLIO DEFEATS EINSTEIN AND THE PHYSICISTS

WHAT DREAMS TRULY ARE IS FINALLY PROVEN

WHY EINSTEIN'S UNDERSTANDING OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA IS INCOMPLETE AND LACKING

The ultimate unification and understanding of physics balances being and experience, and it combines, balances, and includes opposites. Einstein should have started with the man standing upright on the Earth/ground. He was working backwards, basically.

Middle distance and full distance are in balance. The eye/body is semi-visible as the balanced experience of the middle distance in/of space. We want to balance being and experience.

Watch someone else at full distance touch the top of their fully visible body/head with their fully visible hand. Being and experience are in balance, as MIDDLE DISTANCE and FULL DISTANCE are in balance. The feeling of gravity is a balanced INERTIAL resistance. Consider closely that the body is invisible, semi-visible, and fully visible. See how this all goes together so beautifully?

Middle distance and full distance are in balance. GREAT !!

Full gravity involves full experience.....seen, felt, AND touched. Great !

Stand upright. Consider the range of gravitational feeling. Look downwards at the Earth/ground. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. It is the balanced difference involving full distance and middle distance in/of space that accounts for this range of gravitational feeling. Full gravity involves the experience of the fully visible body. Middle distance and full distance are in balance.

Why Einstein’s falling man feels no gravity:

The fundamental and true significance of the falling man is that he is in and experiencing invisible space consistent with this most important and fundamental new law of physics: Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. The eye is the body. The eye is experienced as invisible (detached from touch, beginning distance). A person's eye is also semi-visible as the dome of the eye/body that is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. The fully visible body then extends full distance, and it is attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Middle distance and full distance are in balance. We want to balance being and experience. So, the falling man feels no gravity as a result of the gravitational/inertial balancing that involves the direct experience of the middle distance in/of space. The man standing on the ground feels full gravity, as he is experiencing full distance in/of space and fully visible space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. He is also experiencing the middle distance in/of space in balance. The feeling of gravity is understood as a balanced INERTIAL resistance. Again, we want to balance being AND experience.

The falling man and the man standing on the Earth/ground experience inertia and gravity insofar as this involves the middle distance in/of space and the full distance in/of space in balance in relation to both being and experience. So, the falling man feels no gravity; and yet he is experiencing gravity. The feeling of gravity is also a balanced INERTIAL resistance, as the man standing on the ground is not moving relative to BOTH the middle distance and the full distance in/of space. We want to balance being and experience in relation to both gravity and inertia. The feeling of gravity is understood as the BALANCED difference regarding the middle distance and the full distance in/of space, AS THESE TWO SPACES ARE IN BALANCE IN RELATION TO BOTH BEING AND EXPERIENCE. We want the full distance and middle distance in balance in relation to BOTH being and experience. Full gravity involves FULLY VISIBLE SPACE and FULL DISTANCE in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Now, the middle distance and the full distance in/of space are in balance; as we want to balance being AND experience. Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Notice the balanced attraction and repulsion. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Given full inertia, space disperses. There is (and can be) no real/actual/true/direct/FULL experience of outer space (i.e., full inertia) AS IT IS, as outer space does entirely eliminate and preclude all of our experience (resulting in ZERO distance in/of space given full inertia). Full gravity involves full experience, as full inertia involves no experience.

Dreams are not a creation of thought. How can we "double think" in the dream? Our thinking ability improves while in the dream. If dreams were a creation of thought, then they would already be all "thought out". Dreams are not all thought. Thoughts are invisible. Since space is invisible and visible in balance in dreams, they generally and fundamentally improve upon thinking ability/the understanding. There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

Television is a creation of thought, as it is FULLY LIKE thought. Television is a manifestation or form of extended dream vision AS waking vision. So, TV has significant and considerable adverse effects.

Dreams are not a creation of thought. Dreams make thought MORE LIKE sensory experience in general, thereby improving upon memory and UNDERSTANDING. The totality of dream experience (considered OVERALL) is as similar to emotion as it is to thought.

I have an overwhelming body of evidence that conclusively proves that, in dreams, we are conscious and alive in conjunction with the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are.

The manifestation that is (and that involves) our growth and becoming other than we are is real. It exists. That is undeniable. It involves a transcendent and overall mastery of physics/physical experience. Dream experience is you and other than you are IN BALANCE. Dreams balance being and experience.

The ultimate unification and understanding of physics balances being and experience. Here is where Einstein went wrong. Gravity and inertia are fundamental to the understanding of physics/physical experience/reality. Dreams fundamentally balance being and experience.

Dreams balance conscious and unconscious experience

Dream experience and waking experience are fundamentally related, and they are fundamentally linked; and yet they are separate experiences as well. It all makes sense.

BODILY/VISUAL experience in dreams is visible AND invisible IN BALANCE. GREAT ! Dream experience involves space that is visible and invisible in fundamental equilibrium and balance. Dream experience is necessarily that of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space. THEREFORE, DREAM EXPERIENCE IS SEMI-DETACHED IN RELATION TO TOUCH/TACTILE EXPERIENCE. Dream experience is a linked center of body experience. So, dreams involve:

3) Balanced AND maximum MIDDLE STRENGTH force/energy feeling/touch that is consistent with the experience of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space and INSTANTANEITY. IT ALL MAKES SENSE.

Dream experience is fundamentally consistent with the eye (the bodily/visual experience of the eye). The middle distance in/of space involves the relation of something and nothing. It has the property of visibility, and yet it is invisible. It is visible and invisible in balance as the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Dreams fundamentally balance being and experience. The space that is between (and in the MIDDLE of) the Earth/ground (full gravity, fully visible space, attached in relation to touch/tactile experience) AND outer space (full inertia, fully invisible space, black space, fully detached and entirely removed in relation to touch/tactile experience) IS NECESSARILY THE MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE CONSISTENT WITH HALF INERTIA AND HALF GRAVITY AND BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION. This space is invisible and visible in balance.

Dreams fundamentally balance being and experience.

Dream experience is thoroughly consistent with the following new and great law of physics: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (half gravity and half inertia). Notice the balanced attraction and repulsion.

Given full inertia, space disperses. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. The full distance and middle distance are in balance. We want to balance being and experience. The ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience.

Einstein did not understand gravity. He did not understand inertia. He did not understand that the ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. He did not understand the fundamental nature of our physical experience. He did not understand dreams. He did not understand that dream experience fundamentally and ultimately unifies and balances gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. (I have not only proven why this is so, I have proven that it is so.) Einstein failed to consider the man standing on the ground. Einstein failed to consider dreams. Einstein went wrong by trying to separate, distinguish, or isolate being and experience, and by limiting his considerations to "observer" and "observed". Again, the superior understanding involves the balance of being AND experience. He also failed to see that balance and completeness go hand in hand, as one has to consider the FULLNESS and extensiveness of our experience as well.

=============================================

Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance involves equivalent and balanced gravity and inertia (half gravity and half inertia). This is the experience of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space. THIS IS A MOST FUNDAMENTAL NEW LAW OF PHYSICS.

The cosmological redshift is necessarily a gravitational redshift. The space involves increased visibility AND increased invisibility. (One has to consider how these observations are possible.) This is the key. So, the inertia and the gravity are increased together. Accordingly, the space is stretched/expanded AND contracted/flattened. For example, consider the relative narrowing of the space and the enormous stretching of the space. CONSIDER MAGNIFICATION.

DIMEGLIO TRIUMPHS OVER THE PHYSICISTS. WHY DIMEGLIO REIGNS SUPREME WHEN IT COMES TO TOP DOWN THINKING:

Stand up and look at the Earth/ground. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Full gravity involves full experience. We want to balance being and experience. Full inertia (outer space) would eliminate you and ALL of your experience. The space BETWEEN these two spaces involves invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance. This is the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space. (Note the balanced attraction and repulsion). Also, notice that the eye is the body; and it is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. It is invisible, and it is ALSO visible. Full inertia, space disperses. Full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Now, this MIDDLE DISTANCE and the FULL DISTANCE are in balance. Outer space involves fully invisible space and full inertia (it is black), while the Earth/ground involves fully visible space and full gravity (it is opaque). Great!

Dreams involve a linked CENTER of body experience consistent with the following great fact/truth: Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance IS the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Dreams fundamentally balance being and experience. Dreams involve fundamentally and ultimately equivalent and balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. Dream experience is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Dreams involve balanced AND maximum MIDDLE STRENGTH force/energy feeling/touch consistent with the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space and INSTANTANEITY.

TELEVISION IS FULLY LIKE THOUGHT, as it is a creation of thought. So, it is fully detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. TV is the experience of full electromagnetism. TV IS EXPERIENCED BY THE INVISIBLE EYE. Thoughts are invisible. The distance in/of space is ELIMINATED/flattened in the case of TV. This is what is meant by being "out of TOUCH with reality".

I have unified gravity and electromagnetism two times over. I have unified gravity and inertia two times over.

The ultimate unification of physics balances being and experience. The ultimate unification of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. (Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites.) Dreams fundamentally balance being AND experience. In dreams, we are CONSCIOUS AND ALIVE in conjunction with the fundamental experience of our GROWTH AND BECOMING OTHER THAN WE ARE.

Dreams make thought MORE LIKE sensory experience in general, thereby improving upon memory and UNDERSTANDING. There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

Dream experience is consistent with bodily (INCLUDING visual) experience. Most importantly, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL experience is visible AND invisible IN BALANCE. FULL GRAVITY (the Earth/ground) is experienced by/with the FULLY VISIBLE BODY. FULL ELECTROMAGNETISM (TV) is experienced by/with the INVISIBLE EYE. Dreams are in the MIDDLE.

MAGNIFICENT !

BY AUTHOR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO

By Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

================================

DIMEGLIO IS THE MASTERMIND AT PHYSICS

The Earth/ground involves FULL VISIBILITY and FULL GRAVITY. (Middle distance and full distance are in balance.) SO, the Earth may be understood as a SOLID ALL OF THE WAY TO THE CENTER. The center/middle of the Earth is thus understood as ALSO involving full gravity. Therefore, the Earth's INVISIBLE and electromagnetic/electrical/INERTIAL aspect is understood as balanced throughout with this conception of gravity and the visible. Given full (or all) gravity, space collapses. Given full inertia, space disperses.

Invisible AND visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance involves equivalent and balanced gravity and inertia (half gravity and half inertia). This is the experience of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space. THIS IS A MOST FUNDAMENTAL NEW LAW OF PHYSICS. THIS IS THE SPACE BETWEEN (AND IN THE MIDDLE OF) THE EARTH/GROUND AND OUTER SPACE. IT INVOLVES BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION. THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION (AND UNDERSTANDING) OF PHYSICS BALANCES BEING AND EXPERIENCE.

The cosmological redshift is necessarily a gravitational redshift. The space involves increased visibility AND increased invisibility. (One has to consider how these observations are possible.) This is the key. So, the inertia and the gravity are increased together. Accordingly, the space is stretched/expanded AND contracted/flattened. For example, consider the relative narrowing of the space and the enormous stretching of the space. CAREFULLY CONSIDER MAGNIFICATION.

All measures MUST funnel through our 5 senses to become useful information. It is precisely these 5 senses that must lie at a boundary between measure and information. All telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers, etc., are just physical extensions to our 5 senses. This implies that the unification of information with ALL measures MUST funnel through our 5 physical senses. It simply comes down to "you" and your physical connection to the universe when any measure is made!

Professor Eugene Commins at UC Berkeley studied under Einstein at Princeton. His categorization of quantum phenomena was more rigorous that most. I summarized Einstein's views, as Commins transmitted them to his students, here:

https://everdeepening.com/2016/01/30/quantum-entanglement/

The broad challenge in interpreting the wavefunction is that it a convenient mechanism for lumping together many forms of uncertainty: initial state, uncontrollable perturbations of the Hamiltonian, ensemble statistics, and intrinsic quantum randomness. When the final state is written down, it is almost impossible to disentangle these effects.

The examples that I offer in my post demonstrate that we can create "wavefunctions" (probability distributions) for classical systems that manifest many of the characteristics of quantum entanglement.

Many critics of common experimental "proofs" of entanglement physics observe that they results can be explained by initial state uncertainty. In my post, I describe the kind of experiment that would resolve this deficit. I don't believe that they have been pursued because researchers are satisfied (erroneously, I assert) that their work proves the existence of entanglement.

My sense is that the most interesting question to ask here is whether the apparatus that we use to gather information about the world around us precludes the detection of certain kinds of phenomena. We accept this about our senses, as they have been far surpassed by our machines as regards both temporal and spatial resolution. But that still permits the existence of coherent behavior at larger scales that disappear when thus probed.

As an example, consider the study of a phase transition where introduction of a probe added energy that locally drove the system across the phase boundary. Obviously, the information revealed about the system would lead to biased conclusions. The error would only be revealed if we were motivated to obtain a different probe.

How do we know that our probes aren't biasing our understanding of fundamental physics?

Of particular interest to me, I note that the existence of the soul, long obvious to observers in earlier eras, has become a matter of ridicule in contemporary physics. Could it be that organic structures are sensitive to coherence that is completely disrupted by the conductors and fields that are so typical in modern detectors?

One way to interpret quantum uncertainty is that the observer cannot help perturbing the observation at some point. An example uses a shorter and shorter pulse of light to probe the color of a changing object. Once the pulse is very short, the probe reveals nothing since the pulse color of each photon is white. At that point, color change no longer has any meaning and the observer probe affects all colors of the observation.

Another way to interpret quantum uncertainty is with phase coherence and entanglement. Because we sense the world with a neural phase and there are other people with similar neural phases who likewise sense us, we all become entangled to some extent in a common neural phase of humanity. That quantum phase correlate is what free will is all about and the neural correlation size is what makes people different from a collection of quantum rag dolls.

While the traditional interpretation of an inner soul is subjective and therefore something that simply must be believed, an outer soul seems rather obvious and objective. The outer soul is simply the entanglement of neural correlates that we call humanity...

This is a common path forward for reconciliation of physics and spirituality. My sense is that it is supportable philosophically only when we ignore the actual operation of the Hamiltonian.

To elaborate: consider the archetypical manifestation of entanglement: the two-slit electron interference pattern. The distribution reflects the electron wavelength, which is proportional to its momentum. But what if we transform to the electron rest frame? Then the wavelength is infinite, and so no interference should occur!

Normally in relativistic physics this is reconciled by the field transformations. But in this case, we have no fields.

One way out is to reflect that the screen contains electrons. In fact, when calculating the electronic energy states of atoms, the wave-function must treat the labels we apply to the electrons as arbitrary. Thus, the wavefunction is the sum of the particle distributions with all possible combinations of labels.

Since the electron interacts with the screen, it makes sense to include all the electrons in the screen in the system description. Then the interference wavelength arises from the difference in momentum between electrons.

But wait - do we stop adding electrons to the wavefunction just because we got the correct answer? This was the mistake we made in the first place - assuming that we needed to consider only the free electron. Do we need to consider all the electrons in the universe to calculate the behavior of any system?

This is resolved in the construction of the system Hamiltonian. Many particles do not make a significant contribution to the evolution of the system state, and we are safe in ignoring those. Conversely, the particles of the screen are critical to the evolution of system state, and so must be included.

So returning to your statement regarding psychic entanglement: entanglement only occurs when the particles are coupled by a Hamiltonian. It persists only when the particle states are not disturbed by other interactions. So if we are going to draw upon quantum mechanics to explain spiritual phenomena, it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate the Hamiltonian that accomplishes and preserves that entanglement.

I am absolutely confident that is impossible within known physics. Even if entanglement were established, the dynamic milieu of the body would destroy it almost instantaneously.

You should also be careful in interpreting quantum theories of entanglement. Many of the paradoxes they raise are manifested in classical systems, and when cast in those terms appear - I am afraid to say - just a little silly.

Spiritual can mean things that happen in this quantum universe but are not yet understood, so I am with you. Spiritual can also mean things that we simply believe and for me those things are a few axioms; matter, time, and action.

Brian Balke replied on May. 14, 2016 @ 18:06 GMT as "This is a common path forward for reconciliation of physics and spirituality. My sense is that it...

Spiritual can mean things that happen in this quantum universe but are not yet understood, so I am with you. Spiritual can also mean things that we simply believe and for me those things are a few axioms; matter, time, and action.

Brian Balke replied on May. 14, 2016 @ 18:06 GMT as "This is a common path forward for reconciliation of physics and spirituality. My sense is that it is supportable philosophically only when we ignore the actual operation of the Hamiltonian.

"To elaborate: consider the archetypical manifestation of entanglement: the two-slit electron interference pattern. The distribution reflects the electron wavelength, which is proportional to its momentum. But what if we transform to the electron rest frame? Then the wavelength is infinite, and so no interference should occur!"

I am afraid that even with one electron, there is interference since even one electron interferes with itself as entanglement. Even in the electron rest frame, a single electron or even a person can be entangled with another possible future and a screen is not useful. Entanglement is just a consequence of the way the quantum universe is and depends on the coherence time of the entanglement.

"So returning to your statement regarding psychic entanglement: entanglement only occurs when the particles are coupled by a Hamiltonian. It persists only when the particle states are not disturbed by other interactions. So if we are going to draw upon quantum mechanics to explain spiritual phenomena, it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate the Hamiltonian that accomplishes and preserves that entanglement."

All particles are coupled by Hamiltonians and so all particles are coupled by entanglement of one sort or another as well. Certainly you understand that when two people see each other, there is a coupling and that coupling is due to a quantum interaction and there is a Hamiltonian that describes that interaction. The decoherence times of such interactions can be quite short, but they do exist.

Such entangled neural states do persist as memories and sometimes people seem to know what another person is doing even when they are not in immediate contact. Since such neural states seem to have fairly long coherence times, it seems reasonable to associate entangled neural states with quantum coherence.

In principle, entangled neural packets will result in interference effects, but since science cannot even decode a relatively simple neural packet as a thought, such futures await the decoding of neural packets.

It is indeed very difficult to understand this universal consciousness and its correlated spirituality.I am christian, rational of course.The meaning of my humble theory of spherisation is an essay towards a real understanding of the project of God.I have searched the answers in several centers of interests.Books, sciences, religions, philosophies....I must say...

It is indeed very difficult to understand this universal consciousness and its correlated spirituality.I am christian, rational of course.The meaning of my humble theory of spherisation is an essay towards a real understanding of the project of God.I have searched the answers in several centers of interests.Books, sciences, religions, philosophies....I must say that sciences have shown me the roads towards a real understanding of this entropy above our physicality.I have thought a lot about this.I imagined before the BB.What were this infinite energy.Perhaps an infinte consciousness.I asked me but why this entity has created an universe with physical laws.I said me that perhaps that simply this infinity was alone simply in an universal love and this entity has wanted to create singularities in evolution to share this universal love simply.We are babies of this infinity.The codes must come from a point of departure in fact.This central cosmological singularity, the central BH sphere seems the answer.The consciousness , personnal and singular so is in increasing of correlated mass.We are a result of evolution and our brains evolves also and the volumes also.The souls continue their roads.I beleive strongly that we are all eternal and that the paradise is the future consicering that this infinity above this physicality has the potential to imply this infinity in the physicality.It is very relevant considering the future and the unification , entropical if I can say.If now we want to create an AI with a consciousness, it is an other story.That said it is intriguing considering our souls and the synchronizations of evolution.The neural packets and coherances can be relevant if the volumes towards the singularities are inserted and understood.Now ofcourse can we do it ?Is it permitted considering the uniquenss of souls and singularities coming from this cosmological singularity? The encodings, bosonic and spheronic seems the answer with spherical volumes and motions, the 3 motions of the sphere.Synchros, sortings, superimposings can be harmonised with the good universal reccurrece.Geometrical algebras also can give good Tools.Best Regards and thanks for sharing your ideas.

It is possible to class the informations with spherical volumes.It is also necessary to differenciate these informations.Three main categories can be made.The primordial codes, gravitational and stable ,created by the cosmological singularity.After we have the the encodings.Two main codes appear, the photonic bosonic informations, sphères in logic with different volumes,and the gravitational...

It is possible to class the informations with spherical volumes.It is also necessary to differenciate these informations.Three main categories can be made.The primordial codes, gravitational and stable ,created by the cosmological singularity.After we have the the encodings.Two main codes appear, the photonic bosonic informations, sphères in logic with different volumes,and the gravitational informations,smaller and speeder in logic if my équations are correct, intuitive.I named themthe spherons, so we have the spheronic informations;We can class them also because the volumes are correlated at the two scales.Now it becomes relevant to consider dark matter and BH.We have probably a finite serie for the first information ,primorial coming for thecosom center.So it becomes relevant because the serie seems universal and finite with 1 the number of the central sphere, the biggest volume for the main singulartity.It is very complex to extrapolate the puzzle of all these informations.Stars produce our standard model,BH is an other step permitting toexplain gravitation.It is there it becomes relevant spiritually speaking because we go towards an other physics.The consciousness and souls are towards these singularities.So it becomes very intriguing considering the cohérences and synchros when we shall check this gravitation with different gravitationalaethers fruthermore correlated with spherical cosmological volumes producing the bosonic and spheronic informations.That implies that never the standard model, never the special relativity, our photons can explain this conscisouness and gravitation.So it is necessary to go more far in analysing at the 2 scales,dark matter and BH.AI is possible with our actual physics,but gravitation and the steps towards singularities, them are relevant for these souls and singularities.Quantum gravitation is the secret.I beleive humbly hat my équations can help if they are correct ofcourse.If I made errors ,I will correct or imrpove or add,but I beleive that the proportions and constants appear.The finite series and récurrences become keys.Best Regards dear Jedis of the SPHERE;

Good question. Related to counterfactual measurements and their evaluation via some theoretical framework that could have a built-in bias, because it can only be built upon factual measurements and their *interpretations*. I think, systematic and random errors cannot be excluded a priori for every such theory. The only way to check this, is to find an alternative theory that makes some predictions which contradict QM.

We wait you Mr Weckbach,let's go for the geomatrical algebras with sphères.How can we find the correct syentem of uniqueness.But an important thing is to analyse more far our scales for this gravitation.An alternative theory me I want well but what alternative theory ?Explain me in détails ,I will answer with pleasure.What are your domains, intrinsic laws,series,volumes,......What are your mathematical methods.In all humility I can see the generality quickly ,so don't hesitate to show us your ideas and models.It seems interesting if and only if the pure dterminism respecting this infinite entropy creating the main primordial codes are respected wit its finite series and properties.The errors ,the probabilities, the statistics....and the free will more the psychology can be inserted but with objectivity of course.Electromagnetism is just a step.Regards

I love this Platform and its transparence, it is so important this transparence, we can see the real skillings of people in sciences.It is revolutionary this Platform,FQXI is a wonderful innovant Platform.The years continue and the real searchers improve their general works, the others try to publish relevances but no in fact, they make just business to eat at the same table.Sad reality .............GOOD OR BAD GOVERNANCES ALL IS THERE don't give responsabilities to persons who don't understand nor entropy, nor altruism nor universalism.If our planet is in this state it is becaus money is not given in good hands.Opulences are ruin of souls ......Reggards Jedis of the SPHERE.héééé yesmy friends, I am totally crazy and I will not stop,be sure, so kill me.But you know I have faith and I don't fear to die and suffer, I have suffered so much.I accept my road and I pray all days with humility in front of this infinite entropy in its weakest gravitation.Irritating NO? In logic the hate increases there for some persons and they are very angry for the future credibility.Sad rezlity of a part of the global sciences community.Let's laugh in live so ...

:)) the crazyness is the begining of the wisdom ,but of course you must stop at time,me I have not success to stop.I speak really to God you know.This entropy is wonderful, pure,reasuring,sincere, .....Totally crazy this small belgian with nothing.I have just my theory, I have nor money, nor team,but I have relevances in all humility.Bbruyn elgium is a small country but we are Jedis.The belgian bravour :) Have you seen our team of soccer,it is incredible, it is the first x that a so small country is number 1 or 2 with argentina at the FIFA classment.The Europa cup begins today,and the 13 we play agiant italia,we are favorite,it is cool.Let's go small Belgium ....Eden Hazard gives the ball to De bruyn, de bruyn to Lukaku, lukaku hazard et debruyn and witsel goal goalllllllll goal goal goalllllllllllllllll :)

I discuss in private on LinkedIn with different persons.I have learnt about the strings theory of Mr Witten, it is very relevant.He could find the bridge between the two quanta,different of E.The photonic bosonic thermodynamical informations(classable)and the spheronic gravitational informations(classablz also with spherical volumes).What I find very relevant about the works of Witten is the vibrations and fréquences for the sortings, synchros and superimposings.It can be correlated with my sphères and the rotations.Mr Witten could find thebridge with a good simulation on computer.The serie of uniquenss is finite and specific.We could find the volume of the central sphere of our universe and the speed of particles produced by this central biggest BH.God is not far of us dear Jedis.Mr Witten help us , we need to find the mathematical method to check these new particles.SPEEDER AND SMALLER than photons.Best Regards from Belgium

All you guys, and Georgina too, but not Steve A, seem to envision a universe where “911” was inevitable. You seem to hold a view of the universe in which every detail of “911” was inevitable (but not predictable) because your views of reality see no “mechanisms”, wiggle room or openings in the laws-of-nature whereby individual people could have potentially chosen different outcomes.

Brian Balke is the same, but he seems to think that wiggle room comes from a God, external to reality, who might intervene on your behalf, if you are good.

All you guys, and Georgina too, but not Steve A, are fascinated by mathematical equations and models of reality, but you are not fascinated by actual physical reality. Your view of the universe, the universe which includes “911”, seems to be that everything is 100% explainable by the correct set of equations, plus the correct set of initial values.

I have been proposing an explanatory framework in which the material future does not exist, allowing new configurations and associated relations to be formed. Without that "open future" no free will is possible. Some physical phenomena do not appear to be simply deterministic but obey the rules of probability.Radioactive decay is one example.So simple rules may not always imply the kind of determinism you say I seem to espouse.

You are saying that both “911” and the Holocaust were 100% due to deterministic laws-of-nature plus random chance?

You are saying that the PEOPLE involved didn’t actually have the ability to make choices that could have made the slightest difference to any detail of the “911” or Holocaust outcomes?

You are saying that people (e.g. murderers, Nobel prize winners) don’t have the ability to make any choices: people (e.g. murderers, Nobel prize winners) are ragdolls under the complete control of laws-of-nature plus random chance?

You are saying that laws-of-nature have no “mechanisms”, wiggle room or openings; reality is not structured such that PEOPLE (and other living things) have the ability to choose some aspects of physical outcomes?

No Lorraine I am not saying any of those things. Choices can be made that have effects. However a great many choices are made without deliberation. Even those made after deliberation do not occur irrespective of the genetic, epi-genetic and environmental influences on brain structure and function;Or in isolation from internal and external environmental influences on a choice. That includes such things as sensory inputs, education , social environment, diet , medications, drug use. The notion that free will is being exercised is not always so. Derren Brown; advertising agency task

I think that what you describe as “free will”/”choice” is actually 100% determinism. The Oxford Dictionaries definition of “free will” is: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”.[4]

As I recently posted to Gary on the Wrinkles in Spacetime article forum:

I think that what you describe as “free will”/”choice” is actually 100% determinism. The Oxford Dictionaries definition of “free will” is: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”.[4]

As I recently posted to Gary on the Wrinkles in Spacetime article forum:

A 2016 experimental test of the Conway and Kochen free will theorem reported that: “Our experiment is a test of the free will theorem since it implements the conditions under which axiom (i) applies, then checks axioms (ii) and (iii), and finally reveals an extreme violation of the predictions of theories in which elementary particles have no free will.”[1] Did you notice that FQXi referred to this paper, under the Tweets banner on the left of the Community page, about 5 days ago?

Mathematicians Conway and Kochen describe what they mean by free will: “To say that [experimenter] A’s choice of x, y, z is free means more precisely that it is not determined by (i.e., is not a function of) what has happened at earlier times (in any inertial frame).” [2]

If we have free will, then so do particles: “. . . ‘We’ve proved that if we have free will, then so do the particles.’ ” With this discovery, and this particular choice of words, Conway and Kochen created one of the most controversial theorems of their careers: The Freewill Theorem.” [3]

Free will requires that at least one of the parameters, used to describe the physical outcome of free will, is not constrained by necessity or fate. I.e. not constrained by laws-of-nature, and not constrained by genetic, environmental, educational etc. etc. influences.

I am saying that we do indeed have genuine free will/ creativity/ choice. But what you are talking about is not free will.

That conclusion is false. If they have proven anything, they have merely proven that particles fates are not determined. But that is most certainly not what is meant by free-will; being non-determined is necessary, but not sufficient. Since particles have no "will" at all, their behavior cannot be determined by their will. Hence, particles have no free-will, regardless of whether or not their fates are determined by past events.

Free-will is not the simple inverse of being determined.

"Mathematicians Conway and Kochen describe what they mean by free will:..." And what their meaning consists of, is entirely inadequate, compared to the much better thought-out "meaning", developed by philosophers.

If you, and these philosophers you refer to, want to redefine free will, I suggest that you write to all the dictionary people and tell them that you have a better definition.

Free will is firstly an assertion that someone or something actually has the power of acting. This is an assertion about the nature of physical reality.

Secondly, it is a description of the actual action: free will is about an action where (at least one parameter of) the outcome is not constrained by necessity or fate. I.e. at least one parameter of the outcome is not fully determined by laws-of-nature and previous parameter values.

Lorraine you may have noticed that I disagreed with every sentence that you "put into my mouth" The framework I have proposed frees the material universe from inevitable fate. I was trying to show that on the whole people do not exercise truly free will but simply make choices that they consider freely made unaware of predictability of those choices. Can people act in unpredictable ways; going against education, social expectation, habit and so on? Yes I think they can but it is comparatively rare.

I’m contending that we are genuinely (part of) this universe, and that this universe acts to create the genuinely new. I.e. living things, and e.g. atoms, can act to create the genuinely new: this “ability” is clearly not something that can evolve. (Nevertheless, physical outcome parameters are almost 100% determined by laws-of-nature.) Free will/ creativity/ choice are all the same thing, when you look at the “mechanism” involved.

I somehow doubt that you will agree with such a radical way of looking at reality!

And your use of the dictionary for choice and free will is appropriate.

I believe your position is as you state: "Physical outcome parameters are almost 100% determined by laws-of-nature". And there is a little bit that is -created- and -new-.

What this brings to my mind is Heinz Pagels and his book "The Dreams of Reason". Heinz made a dichotomy of "In Theory and "In Practice". And in theory the universe is deterministic. And in practice the universe has free will.

I agree with this and thus I agree with your points.

And yet I consider myself a determinist, but in the restricted sense of Einstein's that God does not play dice. My particular gripe is with the Uncertainty Principle which I believe is workable but basically wrong.

My sense of determinism is just a small detail in what I see as your big picture of non-determinism which I believe is essentially correct.

There is actually no such thing as choice in the sense of choosing one potential-future-outcome out of a range of pre-existing potential-future-outcomes, where the other potential-future-outcomes are then discarded. This is because potential-future-outcomes are not entities that exist in the universe, they don’t exist. When thinking about which item to choose, e.g. the pink one,...

There is actually no such thing as choice in the sense of choosing one potential-future-outcome out of a range of pre-existing potential-future-outcomes, where the other potential-future-outcomes are then discarded. This is because potential-future-outcomes are not entities that exist in the universe, they don’t exist. When thinking about which item to choose, e.g. the pink one, the blue one or the navy one, the various options are not genuine potential-future-outcomes in the physics sense: the various options exist in the now as physically real structures and relationships in the brain of the chooser.

What is called “choice” is actually the creation by an agent/ “chooser” of a new outcome, i.e. an outcome in which at least one of the particle-level parameters describing the outcome is (potentially) mathematically representable as a new initialized value, as opposed to a value that is determinable from previous values for the parameter and law-of-nature equations.

This “free will” with respect to physical outcomes is actually creativity, the creation of something new: “choice”, free will and creativity are actually the same thing. This creativity ex nihilo is the same sort of thing as what is envisioned to have happened at the Big Bang. We living things are genuinely part of the universe: what it is and what it does.

Christopher Fuchs, Professor of Physics at University of Massachusetts Boston, puts it this way:

What is at stake with quantum theory is the very nature of reality. Should reality be understood as something completely impervious to our interventions, or should it be viewed as something responsive to the very existence of human beings? Was the big bang all and the whole of creation? Or is creation going on all around us all the time, and we ourselves are taking part in it? [1]

I take absolutely seriously John Wheeler's “idea for an idea” (as he would say) that the “elementary quantum phenomenon” might be taken as the ultimate building block of reality. I also take absolutely seriously his idea that within every “phenomenon” is an instance of creation, not unlike what one usually exclusively associates with the Big Bang. This caused John to speculate that “perhaps the Big Bang is here all around us.” [1]

. . . every quantum measurement is an action on the world by an agent that results in the creation of something entirely new. QBism holds this to be true not only for laboratory measurements on microscopic systems, but for any action an agent takes on the world to elicit a new experience. It is in this sense that agents have a fundamental creative role in the world. [2]

thank you for explaining.I now understand what you mean when you are talking about creativity. I do accept that potential choices can be only brain activity.The action potential thresholds that tip the balance in favour of one choice rather than another, in one or one group of neurons rather than another or other groups of neurons is something that comes into being (using an explanatory framework where the material universe is always changing ) rather than having been pre-existent. It is possible that for some sets of inputs there are more than one equally likely outcome, only one of which will be actualized. There is no need for it to come into being ex nihilo and there is no evidence that it does. The brain activity is due to the movement of charged ions giving electrical potentials. I see no reason for likening it to Big Bang like events.

Re “And yet I consider myself a determinist, but in the restricted sense of Einstein's that God does not play dice. My particular gripe is with the Uncertainty Principle which I believe is workable but basically wrong.”:

There is absolutely no creativity/ free will/ choice in an 100% deterministic reality, unless you want to redefine the meanings of the words...

Re “And yet I consider myself a determinist, but in the restricted sense of Einstein's that God does not play dice. My particular gripe is with the Uncertainty Principle which I believe is workable but basically wrong.”:

There is absolutely no creativity/ free will/ choice in an 100% deterministic reality, unless you want to redefine the meanings of the words creativity, free will and choice. And this redefinition of words is exactly what the “spaghetti-logic” philosopher Daniel Dennett indulges in when discussing his bowdlerized version of “free-will”.

If reality is 100% deterministic, then no matter what way you look at it, every detail of ‘911’ and the Holocaust was written into the laws-of-nature (so to speak). If reality is 100% deterministic, then people are just ragdolls animated by the laws-of-nature: neither murderers nor Nobel prize winners had any agency or choice in what they did.

But the last approximately 100 years of physics has shown that reality is not 100% deterministic: better get used to it! Better get used to quantum mechanics: reality is partly indeterministic at a fundamental level, and observers/subjects/agents are a fundamental part of reality.

In the context of what I’m trying to say, the significance of the Big Bang is that “before” the Big Bang there is nothing representable as an equation; “after” the Big Bang there is something representable as an equation. I’m saying that this is a characteristic of the universe: that physical outcomes, representable only by new mathematical equations (as opposed to existing law-of-nature equations) continually come into existence.

Creativity/free will/choice is seen to have occurred in a physical outcome, where one or more of the parameter values describing the outcome are only representable as new initial-value equations: this is seen in the “classical” outcomes in quantum decoherence. This discontinuity means that new information has been “input” into the universe-system. And, like with the big Bang, the creativity/free will/choice bit is not representable as a mathematical equation; only the physical outcome of creativity/free will/choice is representable as a mathematical equation.

I recently replied to Steve A. on "Wrinkles in Spacetime" Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2016 @ 21:47 GMT Relevant to the Uncertainty principle with which you mention having a "gripe", ( Should you be interested in taking a look )

Regarding: There is absolutely no creativity/ free will/ choice in an 100% deterministic reality, unless you want to redefine the meanings of the words...

What you say is true for a reality (universe) without you the observer in it. If you put yourself into the reality it is not true (you are also in the soup so to say). So I say the universe is deterministic but we cannot know it because we are part of it.

Sorry, there is creativity with 100% determinism and I have not redefined the meaning of any words. The problem is that the dictionary definition of determinism is lacking precision.

Determinism means that the initial parameter values and the laws-of-nature determine all future parameter values. It’s that simple. In an 100% deterministic universe, it is impossible for the future to be “open”: because the future is 100% determined – that why it is called “determinism”. If reality is deterministic, then “911” and the Holocaust was 100% inevitable.

With determinism, any observer is like a ragdoll observing itself being moved this way and that by the laws-of-nature. The ragdoll is not an agent that can change anything that happens to it. So the ragdoll observer seems to be superfluous to what is going on in the universe.

It is only in quantum mechanics that an observer/subject/agent is seen to be a necessary part of the universe: the observer is an integral part of the picture.

The definition of Determinism (from the Oxford Dictionary): The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

This definition (and those in other dictionaries) is nuts. It excludes willful from "all events". This misleads us into thinking that the universe as a whole is deterministic.

1. Yes, the universe without willful events is deterministic. It is also a Duhhhhhhh!

2. The universe with willful events of course allows the new, creative, evolving.

You say: "Determinism means that the initial parameter values and the laws-of-nature determine all future parameter values. It’s that simple." This is completely wrong according to the definition of determinism.

You go on to say: "It is only in quantum mechanics that an observer/subject/agent is seen to be a necessary part of the universe: the observer is an integral part of the picture." I respectively disagree. The observer is a necessary part of the universe, irrespective of quantum mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is a very useful human creation but it does not necessitate an observer, because it is deterministic as per the definition of deterministic. Quantum Mechanics has a long way to go before it qualifies as "the Truth".

Thanks for continuing the chat. We are sparing around a very fundamental issue.

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

DETERMINISM philosophy: the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, decision and action is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_determinism.html

With an 100% deterministic view of the universe, then observers, rocks and cotton wool are all alike in that they are totally ruled by laws-of-nature (and initial conditions) at all times.

With an 100% deterministic view of the universe, if you want an observer to be “willful”, i.e. an agent that has some non-law-of-nature effect on reality, then you have defied the physics of your 100% deterministic universe. You end up with a universe that is not 100% deterministic.

But physics has shown that reality is not 100% deterministic: reality is quantum mechanical.

I think you are correct that the whole of nature is not deterministic: it is only the part that we can represent with law-of-nature equations that is deterministic. “The whole of nature” includes the part/s of nature that created the parts that we represent with law-of-nature equations. Quantum mechanics has experimentally shown that there is more to reality than just the bits that are representable by law-of-nature equations.

1. When the observer is outside the system (the universe), the system is deterministic (as you say with law of nature equations).

2. When the observer is inside the system (the universe), they have a big problem in that they cannot look at their own eyeball. There will always be this self referential goofiness reminiscent of Godel's incompleteness proof in mathematics.

The critical point is that the observer cannot know the whole universe because they are part of it. So, the observer is now in the position of not being able to say if the universe is deterministic or not.

I cannot prove that this "eyeball problem" is the cause of choice and freewill, I just like it aesthetically.

And I understand your preference for quantum mechanics as the source of choice and free will. The uncertainty concept all by itself could allow for choice and free will. I just do not like this approach aesthetically.

If you are interested in why I have this bias against QM take a look at two pages from my website:

I think that the law-of-nature equations with their associated parameter values representing e.g. mass, energy, velocity and spin do not represent a self-driving system that automatically moves/changes, driving itself to a new state of the system where the parameter values have changed. Law-of-nature equations do not represent a self-driving system with e.g. change in the energy parameter value driving all other parameter value change: because energy itself does not automatically change. There is no automatic change in the entire universe-system.

Law-of-nature equations represent static relationships, and the parameter values (for e.g. energy) are static until one of the parameter values is changed by an agent/observer/subject. This quantum “jump”/change in parameter values is caused/created by an agent/observer/subject (where agents are particle, atoms, molecules and single- and multi-cell living things). Agents/observers/subjects drive change in the entire system, where each individual change is mathematically representable in terms of re-initialized values for fundamental-level parameters.

Newton's first law would suggest that the universe in motion (that is all of the the systems within it) will continue in motion unless acted upon by a universe stopping force. Large changes can diminish to small changes when looking at a subsystem and small changes can lead to big changes when looking at a sub system but over all energy is conserved. That material universe is the source of the EM from which observations are made.I agree that the observer is co-creator of the universe he observes as it is he who selects and processes the sensory information into output observations and experience. Though I think it must be acknowledged that that output is not the material universe that exists independently of observation.

I second Georgina, there are lots of laws of nature that are dynamic (continuously changing), and her example that "a body in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by an outside force" is the classic one.

Here is my current thought about the observer (as stimulated by this conversation):

The observer is an entity that has a physical memory which contains a built in model of the world. The observer also has a physical calculator (comparator) that can make comparisons between current perceptions of the world and its internal models of the world.

Based on these models (pictures) of the world and how they compare to the perceptions of the world the observer acts on the world physically.

If we have the viewpoint that the observer is so puny and insignificant compared to the huge universe, we can omit all the messy observer stuff and say that that the universe is deterministic.

Now let's say that the observer is me. If I put myself in the universe and then ask myself the question: Is the universe deterministic? I now have a problem. I cannot directly see my own eyeball. I cannot directly see my own memory. I cannot see my own comparison mechanisms. My calculations and theories tell me that the stuff outside of me is deterministic, but I am at a loss to know all the details of myself because I cannot see myself directly. Thus, I cannot say for sure whether the universe that includes me is deterministic or not.

I would be interested in what you and Georgina think. Is this is an opening for free will.

What I am trying to say is that the law-of-nature parameter relationships plus the (presumed) initial parameter values of the universe do not constitute a system that has any real power, in the sense that they are a product of creation, not a source of creation. It’s the agents/observers/subjects that do all the creating.

What I am trying to say is that agents/observers/subjects cause creative change which can reverberate throughout the entire universe-system via the law-of-nature relationships, causing more change.

The creative quantum change that the agents/observers/subjects cause is representable as re-initialized parameter values. But the non-creative deterministic change that reverberates through the entire system is determined by law-of-nature relationships and parameter values in interaction events.

So there are 2 types of change, i.e. 2 types of time: that caused by the agent/subject/observer, and that caused by the environment of the subject. I’m surmising that the creative-quantum change, where parameter values are initialized or re-initialized, is the source of all other change, and so it is the original source of the time parameter.

But I’m also surmising that the universe-system runs down and dies more quickly than might usually be thought, without the input of change by the agents/subjects/observers. I’m surmising that this quantum input of new information is necessary to the system on a continuing basis, and not just necessary at the beginning of the universe.

Re “there are lots of laws of nature that are dynamic”: The law-of-nature relationships are not themselves dynamic. Also the equations that represent these relationships are not themselves dynamic, but when used with parameter values they can mathematically represent a dynamic reality.

Re observers:

Observers are only relevant in the context of quantum mechanics. In any purely deterministic reality e.g. the various hypothetical multiverses, conscious observers are not relevant because they can have no effect on reality: it’s only the laws-of-nature that can have any effect on reality in these hypothetical universes. So in contrast to deterministic views of reality, quantum mechanics is saying that observers can actually have an effect on reality, an effect not explainable by the deterministic laws-of-nature. But in terms of the fundamental physics of reality this is an extremely radical idea, too radical for many, and so the world has been subjected to a steady stream of indoctrination that reality is essentially deterministic from various physicists and philosophers, and their idea is that we human beings deceive ourselves that we could have any effect on reality that is not fully explainable by the laws-of-nature.

So an observer: 1) is an extremely radical idea about the fundamental nature of reality 2) represents a fundamental aspect of reality that does not rely on the historical appearance of living things or human beings 3) has an effect on reality not explainable by deterministic laws-of-nature 4) necessarily requires information about the reality it exists in (this is the essence of consciousness).

I like what you have written under 'Here is my current thought about the observer (as stimulated by this conversation):' -though I would have said it differently. We (humans) operate without complete information about our environment and therefore tend to use rules that we have learned about the way things seem to be and how people behave and so on. They serve us well in stable and predictable environments and around predictable people enabling us to make predictions of outcomes that can inform our choices of actions or words. It is interesting to me that the Lorentz center has found that accurately modelling the atmosphere using complete Navier Stokes equations is prohibitive because of the power consumption that would be necessary to run the computations. That is just the atmosphere. I don't think we can say with certainty that there is complete determinism (of the external environment) because of the complexity and absence of complete information. I agree that we also lack complete knowledge of what is occurring within the neural architecture of our own brains to know that we are not behaving as determined (by the universe). There is some research showing that the body prepares for action prior to the conscious decision to act though there also seems to be a time interval within which an action can be consciously inhibited.

Small differences in initial conditions within a highly complex or chaotic system can produce very different outcomes. When producing a model it isn't possible to include every location of everything that is part of the system at every scale. So there is uncertainty.

The mechanisms you describe are just a long-winded euphemism for determinism. Why go to all the bother to disguise what you are really saying? You are saying that reality is such that “911’ and the holocaust was inevitable.

if you take another look at what I wrote you may see that you have incorrectly interpreted what I wrote. Maybe there is inherent uncertainty in chaos or high complexity because there isn't always just one possible outcome and those small differences of one change rather than another perhaps at a very small scale could produce large differences in outcome. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that what we have (and have had) is all that was possible. I pointed out some limitations that do not allow us to model the environment perfectly.

With chaos/complexity there is only one possible outcome for the system for each next “point in time” i.e. the system is deterministic. The “uncertainty” comes from the fact that outcomes cannot be calculated/predicted due to lack of knowledge of initial values, vast numbers of interactions etc. etc.

This is completely different to “quantum uncertainty” where there can be more than one possible outcome for each next “point in time”.

Georgina, you are talking about a reality where there is only one possible outcome for each next point in time, so you are talking about a reality where “911” and the Holocaust was inevitable.

you wrote 'With chaos/complexity there is only one possible outcome for the system for each next “point in time” i.e. the system is deterministic." I do not know that that is true. Stephen Wolfram has shown that certain reiterated algorithms can result in complex patterns and within those patterns there are sometimes points where more than one result could have been produced but only one is. That, although just a simple model, could be showing that there isn't necessarily absolute determinism of the material universe even though there are rules that are are determining the outcome.SETI and the Computational Universe - Stephen Wolfram (SETI Talks)

1. It’s the agents/observers/subjects that do all the creating. ...I AGREE

2. Observers are only relevant in the context of quantum mechanics. ... COULD BE

However, I prefer to say that agents/observers/subjects change the reality of the universe directly by choosing. Choice comes first then changes in quantum mechanics. And it is a dyed in the wool determinist...

1. It’s the agents/observers/subjects that do all the creating. ...I AGREE

2. Observers are only relevant in the context of quantum mechanics. ... COULD BE

However, I prefer to say that agents/observers/subjects change the reality of the universe directly by choosing. Choice comes first then changes in quantum mechanics. And it is a dyed in the wool determinist (me) who is saying this!

I believe the chooser is outside the system. When you make a choice Georgina and me are in your universe and are completely determined and you are not completely determined. When Georgina makes a choice you and me are in Georgina's universe and are completely determined. When I make a choice you and Georgina are in my universe and are completely determined.

WHAT MAKES CHOOSING SO SPECIAL is that there is no knowing how choice works. It is not in the world of cause and effect (Categorical Imperative if you like Kant). We choose by choosing and in no other way!

CAN I PROVE THIS TO YOUR SATISFACTION? NO! but I can prove it to myself and believe that it applies to others. It goes like this: I make up a story of a person offering me a choice of a vanilla ice cream cone or a chocolate ice cream cone. This person offering says "choose one or the other not both". I choose one. I choose chocolate. The person asks me how I chose it?

1. I say I like chocolate better than vanilla. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

2. I say I always choose chocolate. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

3. I say I like the smell of chocolate better. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

.....100 answers like this. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

104. I really do not know how I chose. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

105. I really do not know how I chose. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

...200 answers of: I really do not know how I chose. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

306. I just chose. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

307. I just chose. Once again the person asks. How did you choose?

.....to absolute certainty the answer is "I just chose"

The world (universe) we see is deterministic, but we cannot know it completely because we caused some of it that we cannot know about. This asymmetry (about self and other) is built into the universe and there is no getting around it.

Is this a proof. NO! It's just a reasonable belief I have that I think is better than anything else that is out there.

I am interested in what you and Georgina think (believe) about this nature of agents/observers/subjects.

re. 1. I agree if you mean that organisms are co-creators of their own subjective experience (as a whole). An individual is not causing the actualization of the whole external environment but may be producing some effects upon it by direct interaction and remotely, such as by causing another to do something elsewhere via telephone instructions.A choice alone will not cause the willed outcome unless external conditions are such that that choice can lead to the action that will bring about that willed change, under those permitting conditions. Experiments have been done in which dogs have been subjected to electric shocks without any means of avoiding them. At first they try (no doubt choosing to avoid the pain). Eventually they learn it is unavoidable and stop trying; entering a state called learned helplessness. Now if the dog is given means to escape the shock it does not even try. Its brain has been altered by experiences it had no means to avoid despite its choice. Has that dog chosen its eventual experience of the world? I don't believe they chose to continue to receive shocks but believed they has no choice. Yet the outcome is that they were still shocked.

You understand me. I was choosing between ice cream cones, and not shocks in frustrating circumstances. We do not choose the whole kit and caboodle, but we do influence it in a non-deterministic way. And yet the universe is fundamentally deterministic via the rather absurd definition of determinism.

The definition of Determinism (from the Oxford Dictionary): The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

I believe the mechanism that allows for this ability to choose comes from the fact that we cannot completely see (or sense) ourselves. We cannot look into our own eyeballs directly and thus we cannot know how we choose, even though we do choose.

I don't think that all choices are made in the same way. Some are almost automatic and others take deliberation. For some even inconsequential decision making can be difficult. Using your ice cream example I can imagine being presented the choice, deciding and then being berated for having the audacity to think I deserved any ice cream at all. So being forced to make a choice is not always so easy. I don't think looking into my own eyes would help (I could look in a mirror) but maybe looking into the eyes of the questioner might, to gauge whether there was really a choice or whether I should say 'I don't want an ice cream'. I think there are probably a lot of factors that go in to processing a deliberated choice, including past experience, and you are correct we can not to see that process in action.It would be strange if we could. Perhaps seeing our choice being made would have an effect on the choice itself.I'm not convinced that not being able to see it makes it non deterministic.

Don -for one person the choice of ice cream is simple. Based on previous experience that person will predict that the outcome of the choice will be getting what they want. They will choose accordingly. Another based on previous experience needs to consider not only the choice presented but possible consequences of making a choice beyond merely receiving what was asked for; using such concepts as presumed motive and mood of the person presenting the choice. Is it a genuine or a trick question? What is the best response in these particular circumstances at this particular time? Different "calculations" will be happening within the minds of the two different people offered the same choice. There might be an unspoken preference that isn't shared because of the potential consequences. It might even happen that by refusing an ice cream one is given as a reward.

Don, association is a relevant concept to the making of choices. Particular flavours might be associated with positive or negative experiences that are'nt to do with the ice cream itself. Scenario- a child is eating chocolate ice cream when his or her pet dog is run over and killed, in front of the child's eyes. The adult is unable to eat (or even hear about) chocolate ice cream without recall of the traumatic incident.So there is an aversion to that flavour.

Is it a choice between two material ice creams being presented? If so is the preference of the questioner known? Should their preference be taken into account and the opposite chosen even if the true preference is the same as theirs? That's another associated question that might require deliberation and affect the expressed choice. Similarly, would expressing an opinion either way cause the other to (then )express the same preference? And is there a likelihood that the expressed preference will be invalidated; something like "No you don't want that you'd prefer.." If so should the opposite of the true preference be expressed?

Re “Stephen Wolfram has shown that certain reiterated algorithms can result in complex patterns and within those patterns there are sometimes points where more than one result could have been produced but only one is.”:

He has shown no such thing. Georgina, your mathematical skills are appalling!

Wolfram’s idea is that only a single rule applies at a point, and that the single rule has been somehow pre-selected from a set of rules depending only on the surrounding environment of the point. This is in contrast to particle physics which says that all law-of-nature rules apply at the level of a particle or atom.

Quantum indeterminacy is completely different to the indeterminacy due to complexity: this is exactly why physicists find it mysterious and difficult to explain. And it is only quantum mechanics that needs to posit a fundamental element called “an observer” that has an effect on the universe-system: in a system that is merely complex, there are no fundamental elements called “observers” because observers could have no effect on the system. Observers are non-entities, redundant in a purely complex system, whether it is irreducibly complex or not.

Re https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re9eB_j6m-0 (1:17:45 to approximately 1:26:00):

Why don’t you transcribe word-for-word what Wolfram actually said on the issue of more than one possible outcome, so that you could check if he actually said anything coherent, or anything consistent with his theories. You may not have noticed, but what he said was neither coherent nor consistent. And he followed his “answer” to the questioner with the remark that “Those are a few thoughts. I don’t think I completely nailed your question, I’m sorry. It’s real-time philosophy: it’s very hard actually.”

So Georgina I repeat: you are talking about a reality where observers are redundant, and where “911” and the Holocaust was inevitable.

I didn't say it as well as might have. S. Wolfram is definitely talking about simple algorithms producing more than one possible outcome. From which an observer within that computational universe would only have knowledge of the one outcome and pathway generated from it. That singular pathway might appear to be showing complete determinism because the alternatives ( that might have been )are not known in that observer's universe. 1.20.01 to 1.22.45. I am not going to transcribe his exact words. I will repeat for a third time that your characterization of what I am saying is incorrect. I will overlook your personal, rude, unnecessary, judgmental comment but am informing you that I consider it inappropriate and unwelcome. Next time I'll report the post. We are talking about physics/philosophy nothing else.

Lorraine, I took a look at the clip you indicated. I didn't find him incoherent but will admit that he doesn't come across as someone at ease with public speaking. He seems to be talking about branching out from the computational model that could be likened to what is happening in quantum physics models but is disallowed in classical models of the universe by Bell's theorem ( it makes some assumptions about those models). In the clip I indicated he mentions SR. So it seems sometimes the branching is regarded as different paths within a computational universe and sometimes it is regarded as different universes branching off from one computational universe. I don't know enough about what he is doing to know if these are different ways of considering the same kind of thing or whether he is talking about quite different patterns.

Lorraine, you wrote "Wolfram’s idea is that only a single rule applies at a point, and that the single rule has been somehow pre-selected from a set of rules depending only on the surrounding environment of the point." That is incorrect. An algorithm is applied to each new set of output, so the output of the algorithm has become the new input for the algorithm. That happens over and over to produce the pattern. Within the algorithm are the same rules each time that are applied as applicable. It isn't a model of "the universe" but shows that sometimes complexity can arise from quite simple rules and processes. And sometimes there are features that can be likened to aspects of physics.

Yes, there are always "considerations". And after the considerations we choose!

I believe (and I have no proof) that we do not have the power of choice because the considerations force or demand a choice. We have the power of choice because it comes with the package. So, this would be an axiom, "we choose by choosing and in no other way". And the process of choosing is usually that: -we consider then we choose-.

Of course there is a rub. And you would be more of an expert on it than me.

You as a sentient scientist (who can choose) look out at the universe of stuff and other beings, and come to a curious conclusion -it is all deterministic- there are no other choosers! Hey, Don you are just a machine!

You can probe the senses and brains of others and see that the whole process of "choose vanilla or chocolate" is determined by preceding events, and thus Don cannot be a chooser and you are suspicious that your power of choice is an illusion. But, you cannot prove that you have free will because you cannot directly probe yourself to a 100% level as you can Don.

This is what puts scientists in a difficult position, they know they can choose but all their logic and experiments say that nobody else can choose and is basically a deterministic machine.

My conclusion is that everyone has free will and can choose. However, we cannot determine this via experiments, all experiments will show that other people are deterministic and cannot have free will. Not being able to look at your own eyeball provides the fundamental asymmetry between self and other that makes free will possible.

There may be some insight QM could provide .... but my intuition says no.

I can't claim any expertise in human psychology but, like you, have some thoughts about it. Human beings do, mostly, develop a concept of mind that they attribute not only to themselves but also others.They are able to imagine what a situation is like from the viewpoint of another and imagine what the other may be thinking and/ or feeling. Though it is difficult to fully empathize when a person's experience falls well outside of one's own experience. That's why, for example, former drug users make good counselors for current drug users.

Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating The linked article is the abstract of a psychological experiment showing that how one thinks of the question of determinism and free will can affect behaviour. It seems to show that the idea of complete determinism is potentially dangerous as it can be used to excuse behaviour that ought to be inhibited.

There are members of the population who have difficulty inhibiting their socially undesirable actions. Looking at the composition of prison populations the proportions of people with; traumatic brain injuries, diagnosis as psychopaths, mental illness, low level of literacy and numeracy are higher than the population at large.Which raises ethical questions.

It seems to me there are elements of determinism and (I would like to believe)'free will' playing a part in the psychology and behavior of myself and others.

Wolfram has been working on cellular automata for a good three decades now, so why is he not able to clearly explain the real-life, basic, quantum mechanics issue of multiple possible physical outcomes? Answer: he actually has no coherent explanation.

Wolfram out-of-the-blue introduces notions of an “observer” who “knows” something, and notions of “many possible paths” to his cellular automata universe (“it turns out that you get many possible paths…you’ve got many dimensions of time here…there are many, many paths through time”).

But observers are only relevant to quantum mechanics, not to 100% deterministic systems including cellular automata.

And notions that ”there may not be a unique path through time for doing that updating”, you “at every step, apply those rules wherever you can” are ridiculous for a purportedly deterministic system.

Wolfram's so-called “rules” should more properly be called “rule sets”. Each “rule” in the “rule set” consists of 1) a decision and 2) a rule for the outcome, there being only 2 possible outcomes: cell=0/white, and cell=1/black . What outcome rule is applied depends on the environment of the cell, with no non-local influences: if the decision is that environment n1 applies, then rule n1 is used; if the decision is that environment n2 applies, then rule n2 is used; if the decision is that environment n3 applies, then rule n3 is used etc., where every rule is either cell=0/white, or cell=1/black.

But in particle-level physical reality, what law-of-nature rules to use do not depend on a decision about the environment of the particle: there are no decisions made about what rule to select out of the set of possible law-of-nature rules: every law-of-nature rule applies.

"In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system." Internet encyclopedia of science " A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."Scolarpedia

Some of S, Wolframs computational universes show more than one outcome is possible in some places, which can be incorporated as branches. A hypothetical observer will only be able to follow one branch and so although with same starting conditions there will always be that branching at that location which path the observer will take is uncertain. If we take these to be branches within a universe its a bit like an observer taking one road and having one experience of the world or taking the other and having a different experience of the world. Not able to do both. Question is; is the universe as the observer experienced it deterministic since the choice of path can be random?

The rules are the same throughout Lorraine, but their applicability within any iteration will vary. The pattern encountered varies. I think it is easily likened to nature, in that there is no pre-selection of which laws there will be they just are and sometimes they are applicable and sometimes they are not. Kepler's laws aren't relevant when looking at a subsystem where osmotic gradient is important for motion. Osmotic potential isn't relevant when looking at a planetary interaction. The laws are not removed from the universe when not relevant to consideration of a particular sub system.

This question: Is the universe deterministic or not? Cannot be answered coherently unless we make a new definition of determinism.

When the individual observer looks at themselves (including their free-will) and the outside universe: They see choices and free-will mixed in with deterministic phenomena. With this view the universe is not deterministic (because there is some of their own free-will in it).

When the individual observer looks at the universe and other observers (without including their own free-will self), they see and measure a completely cause effect universe that is deterministic. It is this viewpoint that most scientists use.

The definition of Determinism (from the Oxford Dictionary): The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes -external to the will-.

If you feel that you have free-will (like I do) then the universe is not deterministic in a common sense way. However! the dictionary says that this cannot be done because if you do this you have violated the definition.

So, if I stay true to the definition. I must say that the universe is deterministic. This is a real "Catch 22".

So, I usually say I am a determinist so I meet the letter of the law. However, from a common sense viewpoint I am both a determinist and a non-determinist (a free-will advocate).

The universe has both free-will and determinism... depending upon how you consider the observer(s) in it. Are they including their free-will selves or not.

The semantics surrounding the notion of the observer and determinism is the cause of a lot of confusion. IMHO

Lorraine, Don, further to my previous post; I think the analogy I used isn't really helpful in demonstrating non determinism. It only seems to agree with Don's assessment that subjectively the universe appears non deterministic but objectively it isn't. However what may be more promising is considering that where there are "branch points", out of more than one outcome only one is actualized ( formed into a material reality). The other/s can not co-exist. There isn't any material evidence of parallel universes splitting off from our own and I think they are only ever mathematical artifacts representing theoretical possibilities not actualized. This allows uncertainty a way in and is not dependent upon observation only the reiteration.Uncertainty can only be introduced if the material universe (without time dimension) is undergoing reorganization rather than already completed and spread across time.

I actually do understand how cellular automata work, and how to write computer programs to produce them: it’s very simple. I’m concerned that you have unreal ideas about cellular automata, and that you don’t understand how they work.

Don, Georgina,

There are various possible ways of defining determinism, but personally I find the concept of how many outcomes are possible for each next “moment in time” to be the clearest, most intuitive way of looking at it: determinism means that there is always only one possible outcome for each next “moment in time”.

Hi Lorraine, I appreciate your apology. I don't claim expertise re. cellular automata but know abut them by listening to S. Wolfram describe his own work online. My interest comes from my interest in time and the likely involvement of re-iterative processes in "evolution" of structures and relations of the material (unobserved) universe. Each output becoming the input for the next application of the applicable laws of physics and chemistry. There is an order; the laws can not be applied to something (a structure or configuration of structures) until it has been actualized (come into material being).

Brains are organs requiring a lot of energy in biological terms. There would seem to be no advantage, (from an evolutionary point of view), to the development of the capacity to analyse complex situations if the outcome of that analysis did not prove to be better than quick automatic decisions. A sufficiently significant number of better choices made that way would be required to compensate for the greater energy expenditure. Increasing chances of survival and/ or reproductive success (directly or indirectly).Also if there was no free will but outcomes were all predetermined the the ability to consciously analyse would , it seems to me, be effectively redundant. There does seem to be a lot of good evidence for evolution through selection of advantageous phenotypes (and I will include in that advantageous epigenetic expression of the genetic code).Hinting of the advantage I have mentioned.

It is a beautiful discussion on this thread.Brains are fascinating in fact like results of evolution due to encodings of photonic informations and gravitational informations.We increase in mass at each nanosecond.ADN is fascinating when we consider the encodings on an Arrow of time.Don't stop your discussions dear Jedis, it is cool to read.Regards and take care dear Jedis of the Sphere

Thanks for linking Wolfram's NKS online! The bulk of the printed version (which I bought before the ink dried) was so hard to handle, and along with the tiny type which seemed designed for no one above the age of twenty, had discouraged me from exploring the book.

Your definition: "determinism means that there is always only one possible outcome for each next “moment in time”.

I like this but it gets tricky. If time is continuous, as many suspect, then you cannot find the next moment because there is always a moment closer in time.

Cellular Automata don't have a next moment in time problem (because they run on a clock) and the definition proposed would be a good one.

My notion (as per www.digitalwavetheory.com) is that time is continuous but the next appearance of a particle is a discrete event determined by the entire universe as per Feynman's sum over histories theory.

Now, I would modify your definition to read: "determinism means that there is always only one possible outcome for each next “position of a particle” or "position of the object".

I do think you're avoiding terms like "the will" or "the self" is a good idea, it avoids the problem of the current definition of determinism.

Does this mean that the dual slit experiment: 1. with an observer (no interference) and 2. without an observer (interference), demonstrates free will?

interesting topic. My opinion on this is that indeterminism and therefore also a kind of free will for human observers cannot be proven in principle. Therefore the claim of strict determinism is not falsifiable with the usual tools of mathematics. This is so because a proof is a deterministic procedure which has axioms that lead to certain conclusions. Proving the...

interesting topic. My opinion on this is that indeterminism and therefore also a kind of free will for human observers cannot be proven in principle. Therefore the claim of strict determinism is not falsifiable with the usual tools of mathematics. This is so because a proof is a deterministic procedure which has axioms that lead to certain conclusions. Proving the nonformalizability of a nonformalizable phenomenon by a formalized system is therefore neither consistent nor logically sound. The latter because one is 'free' (?) to choose the axioms for such a 'proof'. Examples for the undecidability of our problem in question and the choice of individual axioms are the Everettian many-worlds interpretation and the probabilistic interpretation of QM. That it is possible that axioms are not likewise true in every interpretation is a consequence of Gödel's findings, so one can reduce the whole question to the question wether or not formal systems *per se* are the exclusive net from which ultimate reality is built of. I doubt this, because nature does not in any obvious way dictate us to prefer some axioms over others (except if one believes in strict determinism and a kind of conspiracy of nature to choose only those axioms that aren't suitable to prove free will and/or disprove determinism. But this belief would also be at least an axiom!-who has choosen it then-nature or the observer?).

What my lines of reasoning suggest to solve the problem is that there must necessarily be a realm of reality beyond formal systems that cannot be fully captured by formal systems. This conclusion is due to heuristics that there is serious evidence (due to Gödel's, Turing's and other's findings) that our physical universe and its logic therein aren't a hermetically closed, exclusively mechanically working system. If true, then the universal exlusiveness of formal systems has been disproven (with an informal line of reasonings instead of a constructive proof) due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and their consequences for consistent reasoning. Our physical universe and its formal, deterministic properties could no more be considered as the complete content of ultimate reality. One now could ask how one can assume at all logic to really be a somewhat 'non-mechanically' working system? I do not assume or claim this, but i claim and assume that formal logic has its limits (shown by Gödel) in proving certain things and therefore it shows that there must be a not fully formalizable realm beyond logic and physics that also belongs to ultimate reality (otherwise one is left with pondering about wether or not logic is consistent or not at a fundamental level).

That nature has not forbidden my hitherto conclusions could be evidence that nature has not the above mentioned conspiratoric elements in it and it indeed supports some kind of 'free will'.

Hi it is interesting.The incompleteness and the free will.How must be the axioms of choice? and so how can we affirm the determinism?After all we translate what we see and analyse with this said determinis the observations.The indeterminism ,the uncompleteness and the free will can imply several conclusions.But how can we interpret them when we choose the axioms? Are we sure that we utilise the good mathematical methods ?are we sure that mathematical Tools imply deterministic results.It is important to play in a pure free will, that said the free will ,the determinism and the uncompleteness can be unified with rationality.In all case limits, domains,series,axioms,laws,....shall give the best resulsts if an only if we respect the universal determinism.For example the geometricalalgebras, how can we interpret them?The universe and its matter and its energy shows us its universal deterministic laws,series, volumes,domains,properties....It is evident that quantum scale and cosmological scale have a lot of corrélations, proportions and constants.It is just that we are still so Young at this universal scale.The series of God, let's name this infinite entropy like that,are everywhere by constants and proportions,deterministic.The universe is simple in its generality,complex indeed in détails,but simple in its general mechanics.The Tools of calculations are everywhere around us.The maths are everywhere in the nature.The series, the équations of God are evrywhere and like eisntein said thisinfinite energy above our physicality does not play at dices.The deterministic laws are everywhere in the same relative proportions;That is why the spherical volumes in 3D are essential.I loved this thread , the discussions between Georgina and Don.Don't stop dear jedis .

Hi Steve, indeterminism as used by me does not mean that an indeterministic realm is free of rules or is per se meaningless, chaotic. It only means that our hitherto discovered rules cannot capture this realm completely. Therefore our hitherto discovered rules (by which i mean physical, mathematical and also logical rules) cannot be considered to give unambiguous answers to certain questions (usually the big questions!). But i think that our hitherto discovered rules *can* assert that they are indeed incomplete (but without being able to fully specify this 'indeterministic' realm). According to Gödel - if there is at all some isomorphism between Gödel's findings and our external, ontologically real world - his findings imply that the world is a consistent (what does not necessarily imply also determinism!) unity, but only certain parts of it can reliably be captured with some formalistic methods. I am not sure if there is at all an axiom of choice for deciding wether the world as a unity is consistent or not (i don't think so). Therefore there is also no axiom of choice to conclude that the world as we understand it until now cannot be captured fully by some formal system. The latter is a natural consequence of evaluating consistency against inconsistency.

The problem is with Determinism, not Free-Will. In order to determine (predict) the future, one would have to "know" not just all the equations of the physical laws, but all the initial conditions (position, momentum etc. of everything in the universe). The latter, if they are "truly" random, represents an amount of "information" (as the term is used in Information Theory) far, far, too large to...

The problem is with Determinism, not Free-Will. In order to determine (predict) the future, one would have to "know" not just all the equations of the physical laws, but all the initial conditions (position, momentum etc. of everything in the universe). The latter, if they are "truly" random, represents an amount of "information" (as the term is used in Information Theory) far, far, too large to be stored in any "computer" memory, even if all the material in the entire universe, were used to construct the "computer". Hence, the future cannot be determined by such a "computer". Hence, Determinism does not exist, and free-will does exist.

As with all "well reasoned arguments", the problem with the Determinism argument against free will, arises from the first premise of the argument. That premise is that, at least in principle, it is possible for a subset of the cosmos, to contain the entire information content of the whole cosmos, and then use that information, together with the "complete" laws of nature, to predict (determine) the entire future of the cosmos.

But the presumption that a subset can contain all the information content of the entire set, of which it is a subset, is a highly dubious assumption. Since Laplace's conception of Determinism was dogmatized long before information theory was developed, considerations of information theory played no part in the analysis of its validity. We now know better. There is no reason to believe that any subset of the cosmos can, in principle ever "know", the entire information content of the whole, which would be absolutely necessary, in order to "determine" the behavior of the whole.

The only way around this problem, is if all the initial conditions were shown to be merely pseudo-random, rather then true-random numbers. In that event, the initial conditions could be "compressed" and thus stored in a device smaller than the cosmos. But if they are not compressible (true random numbers are not) then determinism is an impossibility; some (low information content) phenomenon can be predicted, but not all phenomenon, like free-will.

Note that this has nothing to do with quantum randomness or whether or not the laws of nature are deterministic or not. The problem is, that the data required to be feed into the computer, in order to make the "determination", can never be entirely "known", not even in principle. Determinism is based on the false assumption, that it can be known.

I am understanding.Godel in his works have several relevances about recursivity.The axioms of choices become relevant when we are in the pure realism.I am asking me how to find the correct recursive serie of spherical volumes of the system of uniquenss and its finite number.The volumes in logic decrease from the central sphere, the biggest volume.I am asking me what is the good arythmetic serie.The primes perhaps can help.The groups are precise it seems to me and purely correlated with volumes.Best Regards

Hi Rob, for a prediction of the entire future of the cosmos, the subset of information you spoke of must surely be determined by some initial conditions and the laws of physics. Means, it would be predetermined if we could execute such a task like that of Laplace's Demon. But the question then is wether this subset of information and its local consequences alters the course of events when compared...

Hi Rob, for a prediction of the entire future of the cosmos, the subset of information you spoke of must surely be determined by some initial conditions and the laws of physics. Means, it would be predetermined if we could execute such a task like that of Laplace's Demon. But the question then is wether this subset of information and its local consequences alters the course of events when compared to the case that there is no subset of information available. If yes, this subset must include and therefore compress its own informational content, because it is part of the course of events that lead to the yet-to-be forecast future. For a complete description of the status quo in order to forcast completely the future of the cosmos, such a self-referential information must be within that subset. But wait a minute, this alters the subset - and therefore there must be a new version of self-referential information to be included within that subset and so on. Therefore, if this subset can make a physical difference for the future of the cosmos, it seems to be impossible that such a subset exists. But what for the case that this subset makes no diference for the course of the global future of the cosmos? Surely, such a subset is practically and epistemologically impossible to exist, but this does not say anything about wether the cosmos is inherently deterministic or not. It is deterministic, if every event is exhaustively determined by the predecessor-event which caused it to happen. How can one prove this to be the case or not the case in our world?

You wrote

"Hence, Determinism does not exist, and free-will does exist."

I think that the impossibility of forecasting the entire future of the cosmos is not a valid argument against determinism. Such a forecast would only be a proof of determinism. But the impossibility of proving something yields no evidence that this something cannot exist (although unprovable assertions are not really scientificly constructive in the sense of Popper, but merely helpfull when it comes to interpretations of this 'something').

Hi Steve, thanks for your comment. What do you mean by "The volumes in logic decrease from the central sphere, the biggest volume"? If you specify, i probably could better understand what you mean. I suspect that you have some slight version of a little 'multiverse' in mind, a cosmos with a finitely enumerable number of nested spheres?

You are welcome.The principle of uniqueness is essential Stefan.I beleive that we have a gravitational stable serie for the serie of uniquenss.The serie is a finite serie.The number is the same for the stable quantum serie and the cosmological serie with the central sphere the number 1.The main singularities, thee main gravitational codes.The uniquness is important and the number also.The nuclei...

You are welcome.The principle of uniqueness is essential Stefan.I beleive that we have a gravitational stable serie for the serie of uniquenss.The serie is a finite serie.The number is the same for the stable quantum serie and the cosmological serie with the central sphere the number 1.The main singularities, thee main gravitational codes.The uniquness is important and the number also.The nuclei encode and the cosmological sphères produce.Dark matter and BH must be inserted in our standard model and the gravitation must be explained.I see one sphere Stefan and a central sphere.The serie is between 1 and X.The spherical volumes so are correlated because the particles are sphères and BH and stars also.See a gravitational aether instead of a luminerous aether.Determinism is essential and the universe is deterministic.The incompleteness is just that we cannot see the truth still about these singularities.But we can utilise the good recursive series for the correct fractal of spherical volumes ,hope that helps.This serie is the same for the serie towards the singularities for the stable gravitationl serie encoding for the quantum series and producing for the cosmological serie.See that if BH produces spherons ,particles of gravitation and that dark matter is this matter not baryonic implying gravity.So we can superimpose BH and spherons in the standard model.Gravitation this weakest quantum force is a different force.Stars produce photons,...........BH produce dark matter and so we have a graviational aether if my équations are correct so we have several gravitational aethers correlated with the spherons produced and the BH producing.The spherical volumes of cosmologicalspheres and quantum sphères become relevant.E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant ,see that the biggest BH the central sphere produces the biggest gravitational sphere,the mostimportant gravit aether and that this central sphere produce the main codes .The linear speed before encodings is proportional that is why the spherons produced by this central cosmol singularity are the speedest and the smallest,they are also encoded,gravitation is explained in this line of reasoning.BH and darlkmatter must be superimposed in our standard model like is the cosmological scale.See that the serie of BH is less numerous than for stars towards the number 1.Hope I am clear ;) Regards

"... the subset of information you spoke of must surely be determined by some initial conditions..." The point is, no such subset is ever possible, if the initial conditions are not compressible. In other words, there is no way to ever construct Laplace's computing demon, except by reusing (and thus erasing) some of the memory needed to run the demon, once it has been constructed. Laplace's construct is based on the false assumption, that it WILL always be possible to erase enough of the "cosmic memory" to enable the construction of the demon.

Dear Rob, you speak about an important thing considering the second law of thermo and the entropical irreversible Arrow of time.The experiment of thought of Maxwell is just an impossible thing because we must respect this postulate.It is like a Mirror of the reality, impossible to touch and analyse.It seems essential to differenciate all the informations.When we consider all these...

Dear Rob, you speak about an important thing considering the second law of thermo and the entropical irreversible Arrow of time.The experiment of thought of Maxwell is just an impossible thing because we must respect this postulate.It is like a Mirror of the reality, impossible to touch and analyse.It seems essential to differenciate all the informations.When we consider all these different informations, so we can relativate the second law of thermo and heat.We arrive so at an important possible bridge differenciating the quanta of E.The informations can be classed.The binar informations are an invention human.The gravitational codes are from this infinite entropy above our physcality,at this central cosmological BH.These informations are stable gravitationally speaking.The photonic informations are encoded by nuclei and produced by stars.The darlk matter, these spherons also implying gravitation in increasing due to increasing mass implying and respecting the Arrow of time andits irreversibility.We canplay with binar informations,we can check the heat and thermo.But we must analyse the gravity.An experiment of thought ,relevant is about the road towards our quantum singularities, these main codesThermo and heat were just a step.Gravitation, dark matter and BH are the others steps towards this entropy in increasing.We can extrapolate by our minds the road towards these singularities.The irreversibility ,entropical is essential.There is a bridge between the thermo and the gravitation.At this zero absolute and at thisplanck scale at 10^-35m.Gravity encircles our standard model in fact and shows the road of codes.PV=nRT is one of my favorite equation in thermo.This equation can be imrpoved at this bridge between gravitation and thermo.PV is always correct,that said we can improve with others parameters.If my équations are correct of course we can see theroad.Quantum BH encoding dark matter seems logic.Gravitation is a real different force,if the particles, the sphères turn and if the cosmologuical sphères turn,it is not due to thermo but by a natural motion implying gravity correlated with the central BH in logic.We can simulate and play with binar codes and informations in computing, but we cannot inlogic with the fields of interactions simply.Maxwell and hisworks are always essential, they can permit to see this bridge between thermo and graitation.The cosmological scale shows us the serie and the universal mechanism.We must class the different informations, binar, gravitational and primordial stable encoding, the bosons photons and the particles of gravitation dark matter in logic.See that the stadard model is encircles like the cosm scale by BH and dark matter.An experiment of thought is to find the road towards these singularities .The dark matter not baryonic of 21 per cent I am thinking is the secret.the puzzle is difficult but we can find the roads of this gravitational energy encircling thermo and giving enven the codes of evolution.PV with the tree otions of spheres can answer forthe road at these bridges separating the two systems.Best Regards

"We can simulate and play with binar codes and informations in computing, but we cannot inlogic with the fields of interactions simply." Actually we can. That is the whole beauty of Shannon's discovery, 70 years ago: It describes the conditions under which it is possible, to do exactly that. Namely, it describes the conditions under which it will always be possible, to perfectly reconstruct an analog, continuous function, from a set of discrete, binary samples (i.e. the reconstruction errors will be less than any possible measurement errors, that might be used in an attempt to detect reconstruction errors).

This may seem surprising at first. But consider the statement that "two points determine a line." In other words, knowledge of only two discrete samples enable one to completely determine the entire, continuous function, when that function happens to be a line. What Shannon did, was to determine how many samples, and how many bits per sample, are required to enable the reconstruction of any function, not just straight lines. This is what "information" is, in Information Theory; the product of the minimum number of required samples, and the minimum number of bits per sample, that will enable the perfect reconstruction of the continuous function being represented, by those discrete samples.

Thanks to explain this .I am going to learn more about Shannon's works.I am Learning in the same time.Doyou beleive that it is possible with our nuclei and fields Rob.This mathematical method have already been tested in lab?It is possible with binar informations but is it possible with the others kinds of informations, gravitational and photonic encoded in nuclei.The entropical...

Thanks to explain this .I am going to learn more about Shannon's works.I am Learning in the same time.Doyou beleive that it is possible with our nuclei and fields Rob.This mathematical method have already been tested in lab?It is possible with binar informations but is it possible with the others kinds of informations, gravitational and photonic encoded in nuclei.The entropical Arrow of time seems essential because matter evolves and the ecodings are agedof 13,7 billions of years considering the special relativity.We cannot in theory return in the past , we can see it, but we cannot return in past and so we cannot imply a reversibility of this entropy.Harmony is general and chaos is in détails.The disorders and the chaos are just when we utilise this entropy in the instant,a short moment.It is chaotic because all is liberated.But on the general line time it is different.It is the same with the quantum of gravitational E in logic.It becomes that said intriguing with the quantum computing and a kind of gravitational codes with spherical volumes.AI becomes intriguing.Not with the binar codes but if the photonic bosonic codes and the spheronic gravitational codes are inserted, it is intriguing.Because the binar codes are created by humans , the others informations are them created by this cosmological singularity and after they arrive inthe cosmological sphères.Let's name this infinite entropy God if I can.It is above our understanding but this cause of all exists and is a reality,it is evident.Gravitation is the chief orchestra.Thermo is just a kind of disponible energy simply governed by gravity.It is incredible in fact all this physicality in imrpovement.I have thought about multivers of Max Tegmark.It is intriguing also if it exists multispheres,with different properties and physical laws,it isintring.But in all case we return at this central BH where all sphères turn,universe or cosmological sphères.In all the case the uniqueness is essential because we return always at this uniquenss.If it exists multispheres,multivers,so they are part of an universal sphere and it exists also a central BH.This one ,this central singularity is stillmore incredible and more fascinating.In all the cases,we are Inside one sphere with multispheres perhaps and we have one central BH.Between wowwwww what a big infinite puzzle.:) it could be well to analyse this reasoning.A sphere and its sphères and multispheres ?In all case already that we have difficulties to analyseourphysicality with its galaxies and BH,so you imagine the multispheres.But it is interesting for the computing and the simulations in playing with the laws of each sphères.Best Regards

"This mathematical method have already been tested in lab?" It has not only been tested in the lab, it now forms the basis of almost all modern communications systems; things like High-Definition Television and smart phones would never work, if these mathematical methods did not enable them.

"It is possible with binar informations but is it possible with the others kinds of informations..." There is no other kind of information. That is the beauty of it. The techniques work IN SPITE OF THE FACT that the techniques have no knowledge whatsoever about the nature of the causes that produced the functions being represented, by the math.

There I have difficulties toaccept that it exists only binar informations.That has no sense Rob.The encodings in nuclei are not binar codes it seems to me.Youmust differenciate the different kinds of informations.If God creates informations and codes ,frankly it is not binar codes.The nuclei of matters are gravitationally stable and encode.They encodephotons bosons and also particles of gravitation.I am doubting that God has created binarcodes simply with a turn off and a turn on.Already that the special relativity and light are not sufficient for our gravitation.So still less the binar codes invented by humans.The real beauty is there Rod ,the universal sphere and its entropical irreversible Arrow of time.Let's respect the project of God no? Some things are possible, others no simply.A computer will be always an invention ,human.The physicality and its wonderful mechanic ,universal is more than our simple human nalayses.The binar informations aresimply codes of turn off and turn on for each letters and numbers.The algorythms permit to class and utilise the automata system.But its is just a human invention with an utilisation of Tools of our special relativity.The universe is not a simple binar computer.It is different simply.Doyou agree Rob,if yes or not ,why? explain mein détails why.Best Regards

There are two problems: (1) what things exist and (2) what observations and measurements, can be made, of the things that exist.

Regardless of what exists, all observations and measurements, can be characterized by their information content. In other words, information does not describe what exists, it only describes the observations of the things that exist. Physicists have long suffered from the belief that they can determine the things that exist, from the observations. But as Quantum Theory has demonstrated, that is not always the case. One can only describe (via theory) the observable effects, caused by the things that exist, but not the things (causes) themselves.

Re “Determinism means that there is only one possible outcome for each next moment in time”:

Definitions of determinism can never have the mathematical precision of a law-of-nature: this definition has an imprecisely defined “outcome” varying with respect to an imprecisely defined “next moment in time”. One or more different outcome parameters, including position and spin, are varying (not necessarily smoothly) with respect to a time parameter.

Re your modified definition (for each next “position of a particle” or "position of the object"):

Your definition of determinism seems to be saying that one or more different outcome parameters, including time and spin, are varying with respect to a position parameter. I.e. your time parameter value could be going forward, stay the same, or be going backwards. But if you said that the “911” and the Holocaust outcomes were 100% determined by the laws-of-nature, you would mean determined in the senses of “inevitable in time”, not “inevitable in space”.

Because free will needs 1) an agent/observer/subject 2) that creates 3) one or more re-initialised outcome parameter values that are not the deterministic consequence of existing laws-of-nature and previous parameter values.

I argue that this (point 3) is seen in the “classical” outcomes of quantum decoherence. And I argue that agents/observers (point 1) are particles, atoms, molecules, and single- and multi-cell living things, but not computers or robots (they don’t have the internal structure required).

It is only quantum mechanics that requires observers/agents: observers/agents are not relevant in a hypothetical 100% deterministic universe because every parameter value in an 100% deterministic universe is 100% accounted for by the laws-of-nature and previous parameter values, leaving no room for observers/agents to have any effect.

Logic doesn’t exist in a void: logical consequences require a premise. Similarly, physical outcomes are the consequence of relationships that are representable as mathematical equations e.g. laws-of-nature and initial values are representable as mathematical equations. The important point is: what creates the premise; what creates the relationships that are representable as mathematical equations? I argue that agents/observers (particles, atoms, molecules, and single- and multi-cell living things) are what is doing the creating that is representable as non-deterministic outcome parameter values in quantum decoherence.

Deciding whether a system is deterministic has nothing to do with whether future outcomes can be predicted or not! The predictability issue is a completely separate issue, and it applies to both deterministic systems and non-deterministic systems, seen from the point of view of a hypothetical observer situated in space and time inside that system (note that, to be completely accurate, observers/agents are only relevant to quantum mechanics, not to deterministic systems).

A deterministic system can be logically inferred when every outcome parameter is 100% accounted for by the laws-of-nature and previous parameter values: i.e. determinism means that there is only one possible outcome for each next moment in time.

And Steve Dufourny is correct: “The encodings in nuclei are not binar codes”.

i think you talk about Maxwell's Demon, don't you? But anyways, i think your argument would also apply to Laplace's Demon. In both cases there is an obvious contradiction in the assumption of such a Demon, namely the assumption to observe and analyze a deterministic universe from outside and at the same time interact with it, but nonetheless continuing to assume that this interaction does not change the course of events.

your framework is a possible option. In fact, one can even argue that physical cause-and-effect relations are 'merely' ultra-strong correlations. This would allow one to set the stage for observers having some causal power without being fully determined by those correlations. The question is then, how can it be explained that QM probabilities should yield their pecise values when such relatively 'correlation-free' observers execute their 'causal' power? I think it was Nicolas Gisin who examined such a scenario in more detail. I only remember the title of a paper called 'classical demons and quantum angels'.

"Deciding whether a system is deterministic has nothing to do with whether future outcomes can be predicted or not!"

Determinism has to do with determining which cause, in a long, sequential chain of causes, is ultimately responsible for some final outcome. If an earlier cause enables the "determination" of all subsequent events, then determinism is valid. However, if only the last cause is responsible, then classical determinism is not valid. So how can one determine which cause was ultimately responsible for the final event? The classic method for doing that, is to demonstrate that knowledge of an earlier cause enables the prediction of all subsequent events. If a human's actions can be predicted before that human was even born, then obviously the human has no free-will. Prediction is the only known technique, for actually demonstrating, as opposed to merely hypothesizing, that determinism is valid.

you give an interesting example. If one could decode a certain human genome such that one could predict the human's future behaviour, this would be indeed a proof of determinism. But what about the subsequent environment of such a genome? For example the environment in the uterus, the invironment during the 9 months of pregnancy, the environment at the time of birth etc.? I think this brings us back to the fundamental problem to analyze all needed data to make our forecast. Imagine the invironment of the uterus would be permanently observed and measured, also the environment during the 9 months of pregnancy and the environment of the birth of that baby. I is hard for me to imagine - besides such a huge observational task - that these interactions do not alter the course of events in comparison to the case where such an observation would not be executed. So one had to carefully execute every single observational step to be sure this step is well defined and can be taken into account for the final calculation of the baby's future behaviour. the question then arises wether one has taken into account all governing laws and all the subsequent and relevant events of these laws, down to the quantum level. The problem is: the needed data may exist (therefore determinism may be true), but it cannot be in any way constructively computed; in the same sense in which Gregory Chaitin's Omega number does exist but nonetheless cannot in principle be computed to an arbirtrary precision. I doubt determinism, not because its not falsifiable, but because i believe that ultimate reality simply isn't merely built upon a huge formalizable structure. Even logic has its limits, in being not able to provide a general mechanism to differentiate between the possible and the necessary, between the contingent and the noncontingent, what indicates to me that there is a realm of reality beyond the formalizable aspects of strict scientific provability.

"But what about the subsequent environment..." Exactly. It is the environment, not the physical laws, that "determine" whether or not determinism is valid. If I can base one of my actions on the value of one particular pixel, in an "ultra deep-field" Hubble space telescope image, pointed at any point in the sky of my choosing, then an entity that can correctly predict that action, is not only going to have to have complete knowledge of my local environment, but will have to have complete knowledge of the entire observable universe. Nothing other the the universe itself, in its entirety, is likely to be able to contain such complete knowledge. Hence, nothing can make such a prediction, since even the universe, the only thing with the requisite knowledge, cannot operate faster than "real-time"; in other words, for the universe, the prediction of an event and the occurrence of the event, are one and the same thing. Hence, no prediction of such actions are possible, hence, determinism is false, and thus we have free-will.

The only way around the "environmental" problem, is if the environment itself, is totally predictable. In other words, if the entire information content of the universe can be "compressed" into a small subset of the universe, which can then use an algorithm to predict/reconstruct every bit of information in the universe (every bit of every environmental initial condition) and then feed all that into the deterministic laws (assuming they exist) that enable the model to predict all future events in the universe.

i generally agree with your arguments. But, from a logical point of view, i have a problem with the statement that if a fundamental prediction is not possible, this implies that determinism is false. If i write a computer program like Windows, i cannot in principle predict if there will be a certain loop in the program that freezes the screen or gives a blue screen etc. If a prediction...

i generally agree with your arguments. But, from a logical point of view, i have a problem with the statement that if a fundamental prediction is not possible, this implies that determinism is false. If i write a computer program like Windows, i cannot in principle predict if there will be a certain loop in the program that freezes the screen or gives a blue screen etc. If a prediction of these events would be possible for all cases and for all software programs, Microsoft would have used it to prevent these unwanted happenings. But although they obviously happen, this does not mean that Windows has some indeterministic components in it. Windows cannot in principle predict how long certain tasks need to be finished. This is why only the sandclock appears and not a truthful time span. This is analoguous to an assumed deterministic universe for which the prediction is identical with the calculation (although in our universe we do not see myriads of sandclocks everywhere, indicating that a calculation is going on).

If the entire information content of the universe could be compressed into a certain subset of the universe, this would mean that the universe would be an exactly self-similar structure. its overall information content would be identical with that of the subset. I think, in some sense, this was the hope of some esoteric figures in history, like Hermes Trismegistos, who coined the term 'what's above, is also below'. I think the idea of exact self-similar structures is somewhat nonsense, because i can see no precise isomorphism of a Galaxy with what happens in my body or at the neural or even quantum brain level. Even the assumed isomorphism of nucleus and electron with stars and planets turned out to be not feasible. The question is, if the universe is not such a self-similar structure, is this sufficient to conclude that it has necessarily to be considered as not being an exclusively deterministic system? I think the answer is 'no', without necessarily also advocating for an exclusive deterministic view of fundamental reality. My point is merely the general provability of such claims like 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic', what surely leads straight to the question about the ontological reality of one of the respective QM-interpretations.

Quantum theory for me is the pure quantum objective and deterministic mehanics.The relativistic proportions and series have intrinsic gravitational codes encoding these photonic bosonic informations and gravitational informations created by cosmological Sphères in logic.The nuclei encode, cosmological sphères them produce...............See the link with the central BH...

Quantum theory for me is the pure quantum objective and deterministic mehanics.The relativistic proportions and series have intrinsic gravitational codes encoding these photonic bosonic informations and gravitational informations created by cosmological Sphères in logic.The nuclei encode, cosmological sphères them produce...............See the link with the central BH of our Universal sphere.All gravitational codes come from there.Now why the stars exist ?A star is a relativistic tool permitting the complexifiction of mass.Now Gravitation is different.That is why it becomes relevant Rob to consider the main causes like gravitational ,in nuclei and at cosmological scale.The determinism, gravitational is an universal reality.Like the entropical principle and the principle of equivalence and the principle of uniquenss.See that the cntralBH is linked withall quantum singularities, these central gravitational quantum BH in logic.The causes and events can be analysed with determinism considering thesse informations and their quantum mechanics.The quantum theory is rationaland logic entropically speaking.I say me that photons are encircled by this gravitation like all in fact relativelly speaking.The spherical volumes and the rotations and motions can show the roads towards the detrministic universal proportions.Causes are deterministic and informtions are not binar.The relativity is a tool of thisentropy above our physicality.Light and thermo and special relativity permitsto see, to evolve, to encode, to utilise energy......The luminerous aether seems encircled by thisgravitation.I beleive strongly that dark matter is the secret and that BH are a key also.We see the galaxies like encircled by BH and dark matter.We must even recalculate our mass in inserting this matter not baryonic.The Gravitation encircles the cosmological scale but also the quantum scale.In fact the universe andits uniqueness is like a relative foto of our quantum serie in its uniquenss and finite number.See that my équations can be interesting if they are correct.The motions and rotations of sphères aredetrminitically prportional in logic.The causes are gravitational at all scales in fact.You see that we have different informations.Human informations ,binar and the informations gravitational of this infinite entropy, God :)Regards

The reason Microsoft does not fix the bugs in its software, has little to do with whether or not it can be done "in principle". It has to do with whether or not they deem it to be worth doing "in practice". When the costs exceed any predicted benefit, they don't bother to fix them.

Here is what Pierre Simon de Laplace, himself (the originator of the modern concept of Determinism) had to say about the topic, in his "Philosophical Essay on Probability", two hundred years ago:

"An intelligence which in a single instant could know all the forces which animate the natural world, and the respective situations of all the beings that made it up, could, provided it was vast enough to make an analysis of all the data so supplied, be able to produce a single formula which specified all the movements in the universe from those of the largest bodies in the universe to those of the lightest atom. For such an intelligence, nothing would be 'uncertain', and the future, like the past, would be present before its eyes."

From Western Philosophy: An Anthology, Edited by John Cottingham, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 319

Laplace's final sentence makes it clear that being able to predict the future of everything, has always been a central concept in Determinism.

So, can "all the data so supplied", actually be "so supplied"? Not unless it is compressible, because, if it is not compressible, there would then be no memory, other then the universe itself, in its entirety, "vast enough" to contain it all.

Laplace got it right; unlike many later writers, he realized that the whole concept is based on the assumption of having "all the data so supplied" within an entity "vast enough" to contain it all, and then exploit it, in order to determine the future of the entire universe, before it actually happens.

It is intersting.That said it is not because we spaek about the works of somebody than we can interpret it like we want.The theories of probabilities are relevant for the simulations , for the climate, for the economy .....That said the hazard and the free will cannot be themain chiel orchestra towards the determinism.Because the quantum theory is deterministic in fact.The sphères of binar...

It is intersting.That said it is not because we spaek about the works of somebody than we can interpret it like we want.The theories of probabilities are relevant for the simulations , for the climate, for the economy .....That said the hazard and the free will cannot be themain chiel orchestra towards the determinism.Because the quantum theory is deterministic in fact.The sphères of binar encoded informations ,these volumes of informations are vast indeed in the pure relativity and lectromagnetic correlated waves.That said gravitation is totally different.The datas are compressible like you said but it is just a human invention utilising relativity and thermo and standard model.Frankly it is bizare what you say about the prédictions about the future of the unversal sphere ,this entire universe like you said.How is it possible if we don't check still this gravitation? these main codes and informations more far than our actual mesures and deterministic proportions.The potential of hard wares is limited ,electromagnetism is a tool.But not the main cause.Laplace is right if and only if we have all the parameters, we have not them Rob simply.We must accept our limits and be rational about how acts this entire univere like you said and its determinism at all scales.The stochastic calculations and mesures and équations permit thisprobablity but other psychological and foundametal parameters must be inserted morethe gravitation with the good series and finite numbers.We have limits for the pprediction.We can simulate and predict with our human limits.Already that we don't know the correct number of galaxies ,you imagine the puzzle withthe time space evolution? Wowww it seems not possible because we have this said limits.That said there is a precise number in logic for the serie of uniquenss.So we can found the volumes, and gravitation.But even when we shall check this grvity,we shallhave our limits due to superimposings of gravitational aethers.The main primordial aether is not appraochable it seems to me humbly.Regards

the relevance of works of Laplace is to consider the entropical potential with the differential équations.If my reasoning is correct about the spherisation by quantum sphères and cosmological sphères Inside an universal sphere.So we can analyse the mechanic of BH differently in adding my équations in the differential équations.If the serie of volumes is found and the volume ofthe central BH of our Universal sphere.So we can found the real universal mechanic of sphères and spheroids.Laplace ,Gauss et Newton if they were with us d help us.And they d say also ,Feynmann had reason ,one day we shall see all the truth and we shallsay but how is it possible that we have not seen it before.The truth is everywhere around us.They turn so they are.Gauss feynmann Newton and Laplace d have loved my theory of spherisation,I am persuaded and more they d add several relevances.The determinism always and the universal mechanic of celest sphères and quantum sphères.It is essential to encircle the whole, the gnerality,if not even the détails can be false simply because they does not respect the universal deterministic laws and domains.Regards

you may be right with microsoft. But generally, according to Turing, one cannot know in advance if there will be a bug in a complex computer program. Only after such a bug was observed ('calculated by the program itself'), one can fix it. Doing this or not is another matter. The assumption of having at some point in time the needed information (in compressed form) for simulating the future is obviously a hopeless and an illogical task. Because finding out that you will eat chocolate icecream tomorrow can be easily sabotaged by you by simply not eating chocolate icecream tomorrow. In this sense, this is indeed a 'proof' of free will. But only if one accepts that the compressed and extrapolated data was indeed the data Laplace mentioned. Anyways, in general, the assumption of a strictly deterministic clockwork-universe seems to be flawed by the icecream-example, because due to human experience, it is always possible for human beings to sabotage such a prediction, be it derived by mathematics or by simply betting on it. Stones an planets may follow those predictions, but the problem begins if humans are involved.

Re “which cause, in a long, sequential chain of causes, is ultimately responsible for some final outcome” etc. etc:

Complexity issues in a (theoretical) 100% deterministic system can mean that future outcomes cannot necessarily be predicted in the “Now”. So whether or not a system in question is deterministic cannot be decided on the basis of whether future outcomes can be predicted in the “Now” or not! This is just basic logic.

But physics already knows that the underlying reality is so regular and reliable that its parameters, its interactions and its evolution, can be compactly represented by mathematical equations. This “more compact” way of evaluating the nature of reality means that you don’t need to look at the whole history of the universe (and you couldn’t anyway) – you only need to look at the immediate outcomes of various types of particle-level experiments – in order to evaluate whether reality is 100% deterministic or not, where “deterministic” means that there has been found to be only one possible and predictable outcome each time the experiment is repeated. And experimentally it has been found that reality is not 100% deterministic.

But free-will is not the same as indeterminism: to say that free will exists is much more specific than to just say that we live in an indeterministic universe-system. Free-will requires agents/subjects/observers that can actually “make a real difference” to physical reality.

Quantum mechanics is the only way of looking at reality in which the (so called) “observer” is seen to have some genuine agency, some effect upon reality that is not explainable as being 100% due to laws-of-nature. This is not a matter of logic or philosophy: real-life scientific experimental outcomes have led to the conclusion that “observers” do have an effect on reality.

Our universe is not 100% deterministic, so philosophical logic can only have limited explanatory power. It is time to stop talking about the “Darling of Logic”, the deterministic universe: it’s time to start talking about actual reality.

"Our universe is not 100% deterministic, so philosophical logic can only have limited explanatory power"

This sounds like: if the universe is 100% deterministic, then philosophical logic as unlimited explanatory power. But this would obviously be a false statement, because not all logical consistent systems necessarily meet reality (otherwise all the consistent...

"Our universe is not 100% deterministic, so philosophical logic can only have limited explanatory power"

This sounds like: if the universe is 100% deterministic, then philosophical logic as unlimited explanatory power. But this would obviously be a false statement, because not all logical consistent systems necessarily meet reality (otherwise all the consistent QM-interpretations had to be true simultaneously).

The question of wether or not logic has limited explanatory power is not a question of determinism or indeterminism, it is a question of what the origins of logic are and wether therefore logic is only a contingent thing amongst others or a noncontingent thing (means, a fundamental, consistent and necessary structure at least of our universe). Logic has its limits, it follows exclusively only deterministic rules; only the initial assumptions are often choosable, and therefore open to dispute and interpretational questions.

But anyway, you are exactly correct by saying that logic (not only philosophical logic!) has its limits. For example the problem of induction, originally formulated by David Hume, is a fundamental limit for our logic. But this does not imply that we cannot deduce something meaningful from observations. Of course this trivialities are not new to you. I only want to emphasize that if one claims the unviverse to be strictly deterministic by means of being theoretically able to predict its own future completely, then a contradiction arises. Imagine you have the compressed formula of Laplace in hands (or in your computer). The formula says that tomorrow i will eat chocolate icecream. Case number 1: You do not tell me, but observe me tomorrow. I do indeed eat chocolate icecream at this day. Case number 2: You do tell me your forecast and i like to disprove your formula by not eating chocolate icecream tomorrow. What does the second case tell us? It tells us that your formula is only reliable for case number 1. For case number 2 however, your formula does predict the wrong thing - namely it obviously does not contain my decision to sabotage you and your formula, its an incomplete formula. Regarding your theory of strict determinism, your formula should have considered my future decision to sabotage you. But it hasn't. So philosophical logic can say something meaningful about external reality, but unfortunately surely not a